Energy transformations are an important part of the functioning of ecosystems, and a key part of those energy transformations is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, bacteria, and other organisms use the energy of sunlight to manufacture food in the form of sugar. If it weren’t for photosynthesis, the energy source (sunlight) for all ecosystems would be useless. In other words, we’d all die, even though we might have really nice tans.

In this month’s Ask the Experts column, the following question is addressed: “Do the cells in a placenta have DNA in them and if so, whose DNA does it match, the mother or the fetus?”

We humans are pattern finders and explanation seekers. Fortunately, many of our seemingly reasonable patterns and explanations have not withstood the test of time. For example, we no longer believe that volcanic eruptions occur as a result of the god Vulcan firing up his furnace inside a volcano. During the past several centuries, we have developed and refined a process that avoids such wishful thinking. This process, science, makes it possible to separate reality from illusion. The rationale for accepting science’s way of evaluating phenomena is compelling: It works. Its self-correcting features allow us to determine which beliefs about reality are flawed.

One of the shortcomings in most efforts to integrate art and science is that many of us have a shallow understanding of art, which inevitably leads to shallow connections between art and science. Coloring drawings of planets, building sculptures of volcanoes, and decorating scientific diagrams are fine activities, but they do not link science and art in powerful ways. One way to more deeply connect art and science is to consider art in its more broad form—aesthetics, and in this case, the sublime.