The New York Times is ginning up fake controversy

By Razib Khan | July 26, 2012 10:46 am

Update: That charlatan David Klinghoffer seems to be enjoying this. As a rule I don’t follow dishonest propagandists, but it’s interesting how appealing this sort of “two sides” story is to Creationists. End Update

Reading this article this morning, DNA and Fossils Tell Differing Tales of Human Origins, really aggravated me. I believe that it’s totally misrepresenting the tensions in the scientific process here, and misleading the public. The standard conflict/”two views” format is used, and to disastrous effect. Here are some of the sections which I found alarming:

The geneticists reached this conclusion, reported on Thursday in the journal Cell, after decoding the entire genome of three isolated hunter-gatherer peoples in Africa, hoping to cast light on the origins of modern human evolution. But the finding is regarded skeptically by some paleoanthropologists because of the absence in the fossil record of anything that would support the geneticists’ statistical calculation….

In a report still under review, a third group of geneticists says there are signs of Neanderthals having interbred with Asians and East Africans. But Neanderthals were a cold-adapted species that never reached East Africa.

Although all known African fossils are of modern humans, a 13,000-year-old skull from the Iwo Eleru site in Nigeria has certain primitive features. “This might have indicated interbreeding with archaics,” said Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London. “For half of Africa we really have no fossil record to speak of, so I think it’s quite likely there were surviving archaic forms living alongside modern humans.”

Paleoanthropologists like Dr. Klein consider it “irresponsible” of the geneticists to publish genetic findings about human origins without even trying to show how they may fit in with the existing fossil and archaeological evidence. Dr. Akey said he agreed that genetics can provide only part of the story. “But hopefully this is just a period when new discoveries are being made and there hasn’t been enough incubation time to synthesize all the disparities,” he said.

I could have quoted the whole piece and highlighted aspects which I think mislead in terms of public perception. There’s just so much. First, a minor factual issue: I’ve seen presentations on the East Africa Neandertal admixture, and the researchers seem to assume that that is due to “back migration” from Eurasia. In other words, the point about Neandertals being cold-adapted is irrelevant. Second, the big issue seems to be that some paleoanthropologists are unhappy. This is not a debate between all paleoanthropologists and all geneticists. In fact, some genetics are moderately skeptical of admixture because they think it might be due to population structure in the ancient African H. sapiens sapiens. Even within the article you have Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist, giving a straightforward reason for why there is a mild discordance here: a lacunae in the fossil coverage across much of Africa due to difficulties of preservation.

The major dynamic to me seems to be that Richard Klein, admittedly a very prominent paleonanthropologist, is also very ticked off. He has some reason to be. Much of the framework within which he has worked is now being shifted (see The Dawn of Human Culture). Klein’s model is that modern humans emerged as a singular speciation event within Africa, and rapidly expanded and replaced other human lineages in totality due to their peculiar genetic innovations (e.g., language). This is hard to align with the current genomic data. But Klein’s views are not the only ones within paleoanthropology. People like John Hawks, Milford Wolpoff, and Erik Trinkaus are no doubt excited by the new statistical inference techniques because they supports their own models, more or less.

What are you seeing here is a battle within paleoanthropology. It is probably correct that statistical geneticists should take more care to integrate fossils into their interpretative frameworks, but there are still plenty of fossil people who feel vindicated by the new genomic findings even granting this objection. Additionally, even those who don’t necessarily taking heart from these findings, such as Chris Stringer, are revising their own viewpoints. You can see the “other perspective” (i.e., not Klein’s) in this paper in Journal of Human Evolution: Did a discrete event 200,000–100,000 years ago produce modern humans?.

I do want to be clear here that I think Richard Klein and his camp are free to feel aggrieved. Science is about dispute and disagreement in many ways. But I think The New York Times does a disservice by confusing what is really a within field controversy into one between two scientific teams.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Anthroplogy, Paleontology
MORE ABOUT: Richard Klein
  • mdb

    Nicholas Wade and Richard Klein probably have worked together a lot, just going by Nicholas Wade’s other writings and his book Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. Probably why Richard Klein is treated as paleontology in the article.

  • ss

    Great job pointing out the unnecessary spin put on the article by the NYT!

    However, I would like to point out that the new statistical inference techniques are in fact NOT supporting the Multi-regionalists (Hawks, Wolpoff et al.). In fact, by and large the genetic evidence–patterns of linkage disequilibrium, genetic diversity, etc–still very strongly points to an Out-of-Africa model for the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. The inferred rates of archaic admixture are quite low and indicate an only slightly modified replacement model.

  • Wesley Pegden

    Shouldn’t you have interviewed one of the paleontologists your talking about, so that you could include a quote in your article supporting what you’re saying?

    Otherwise it seems weird to be criticizing the journalism standards of the Times article.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    are in fact NOT supporting the Multi-regionalists (Hawks, Wolpoff et al.).

    hawks and wolpoff are not multi-regionalists as you characterize them anymore. i’ve talked to them and they seem OK with the leaky replacement model.

    The inferred rates of archaic admixture are quite low and indicate an only slightly modified replacement model.

    i disagree here. the coalescence between some of these african groups and other groups (e.g., san) is REALLY deep. the general framework stands, but the modifications may not be slight. the weird stuff is in the supplements.

    #3, huh? OK, i selectively go out and find people to support my position??? look, i know some of these anthropologists, at least in a passing sense. i’m not criticizing journalism standards. what are those? i have no idea. all i’m saying is that this ‘conflict’ between paleoanth ppl and geneticists is bullshit. i know lots of geneticists who are moderately skeptical, and i know paleoanth people who are moderately supportive.

  • http://johnhawks.net/weblog John Hawks

    The story of the overall transformation of human origins is such a good one, and Wade (among other journalists) totally misses it. I mean, we’ve come to the point where Sarah Tishkoff is publishing strong evidence for archaic gene flow and intermixture. A mere five years ago, the idea you’d find something like this in African genetics was the idea of a few lone cranks (like me). Now everybody’s on the bandwagon.

    This is a huge story of scientific transformation, a real battle between contradictory models of human evolution, where the field has transformed from one model to the other in a span of only a decade.

  • Wesley Pegden

    In response to 4:
    What I am suggesting is that in this article, one of your main points is that you have a list of people which you think hold a certain position. Generally it might be nice to have some quotes from at least one or two of them backing that up. Even if they are not new quotes, anything that makes this article something other than a blind exercise in trust might be nice. Someone genuinely curious about the issue might be forgiven for having stick to thinking that the general Times thrust of “at present geneticists and paleoanthropologists have somewhat different stories to tell” is more trustworthy than your perspective.

    Incidentally, a google scholar search suggests that John Hawks is mostly doing genetics now? Erik Trinkaus seems like he might have an interesting perspective on this issue. The general problem of what to do when genetic evidence disagrees with fossil evidence is an interesting one. For example, does Erik Trinkaus think that the current genetic evidence is a reliable way of evaluating competing theories about the fossil evidence? Its possible that regardless of how well it lines up with his own reserach, he doesn’t place much stock in the current genetic evidence. Without asking him (or referencing some writings of his, etc.,), how do we know?

  • http://johnhawks.net/weblog John Hawks

    In fact, by and large the genetic evidence–patterns of linkage disequilibrium, genetic diversity, etc–still very strongly points to an Out-of-Africa model for the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. The inferred rates of archaic admixture are quite low and indicate an only slightly modified replacement model.

    I hear that claim a lot, and it’s usually made by people who want to seem “intellectually respectable” to a certain crowd, and don’t realize how it betrays a very poor understanding of population genetics. The strongest argument for an out-of-Africa bottleneck was the low global effective size. That argument has now completely evaporated with the recognition that genetic variation today includes Neandertal and Denisovan variants. A secondary argument was that non-African variation for most loci was a subset of African variation. We now can observe that argument is generally false when considering large enough samples, and has no bearing on the question of origins. A tertiary argument was the lack of mtDNA introgression from Neandertals, which is clearly now irrelevant.

    Those who argued that multiregional evolution required some large amount of Neandertal survival were only caricaturing the model for their own purposes. I can see why they would do that, but the real issue has always been speciation and the possibility of reproductive isolation.

  • http://chronicle.com/percolator Josh Fischman

    John is right. There are many, many paleoanthropologists and geneticists “on the bandwagon” of admixture in Africa, not two opposing camps. Chris Stringer’s main point in the NYT, and to me when I interviewed him, isn’t that a gap in the fossil record undercuts the genetics. Instead, he says that fossils like the Nigerian skull SUPPORT Tishkoff’s admixture findings. See: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/mystery-human-ancestor-found-in-african-genes/30223

  • http://dienekes.blogspot.com Dienekes

    There is evidence that most modern humans share a very large chunk of fairly recent common descent, but the evidence that this chunk represents a recent Out-of-Africa event is weak to non-existent.

  • Dm

    The concluding lines of the paper are “Data reported in this paper will be available by request and at the dbSNP (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/) and dbGaP (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/) websites.” “Will” = ?? Anyone knows the timeframe / handles? As of now, it doesn’t seem like there is any variant data from the paper in dbSNP … am I missing something?

    And what about Maasai dataset? Is MKK full genomic SNP set (as opposed to a HapMap subset) available?

    BTW Razib, Lachance 2012 mentions high level of homozygous tracts in Hadza who are describe as both highly inbred and highly genetically diverse … a familiar refrain, isn’t it?

  • ss

    @RazibKhan “i disagree here. the coalescence between some of these african groups and other groups (e.g., san) is REALLY deep. the general framework stands, but the modifications may not be slight. the weird stuff is in the supplements.”

    Coalescence times are for individual loci; by chance, due to a variety of stochastic processes such as incomplete lineage sorting, any given gene tree can have deep coalescence times. For example, at the species level, human appear to be more completely related to chimp rather than gorilla i.e. (H,C),G. However, there are loci where the tree is (H,G),C. This does not necessarily imply there had to have been admixture between the ancestors of humans and gorillas.

    @JohnHawks “I hear that claim a lot, and it’s usually made by people who want to seem “intellectually respectable” to a certain crowd, and don’t realize how it betrays a very poor understanding of population genetics. The strongest argument for an out-of-Africa bottleneck was the low global effective size.”

    The argument for OoA is based on lower levels of genetic diversity observed outside of Africa, which is supported by ALL whole genome sequencing experiments of global contemporary human populations. This is NOT in dispute. For example, a very cursory search of the genomics literature quickly leads one to quotes such as this-

    “Populations with African ancestry contributed the largest number of variants and contained the highest fraction of novel variants, reflecting the greater diversity in African populations. For example, 63% of novel SNPs in the low-coverage project and 44% in the exon project were discovered in the African populations, compared to 33% and 22% in the European ancestry populations.” -http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7319/full/nature09534.html

    As I mentioned earlier, other strains of genomic evidence such as patterns of LD decay also support a primarily OoA model of human origins.

  • Randall

    Can I ask are you suggesting the NY Times is deliberately misleading the public? Or, are you suggesting they are accidentally doing it, perhaps because the author does not understand the science (I don’t myself)?

  • Dwight E. Howell

    I’m truly happy to see a lot of disagreement and discourse going on. That is what you expect to see when real science is being done. Anytime anyone says scientists agree you know something is very wrong.

  • unknown

    Razib Khan:

    “I’ve seen presentations on the East Africa Neandertal admixture, and the researchers seem to assume that that is due to “back migration” from Eurasia.”

    Who were these East Africans in question and how did their Neanderthal ancestry compare/contrast to frequencies observed in nearby Arabia and Eurasia in general? Was it similar or at decreased frequencies.

    Depending on the levels detected, it could either imply Eurasian gene-flow into East Africa or East Africans having reached the Levant, where such admixture has been speculated to have taken place, and simply “back-migrating” back to East Africa.

  • http://dienekes.blogspot.com Dienekes

    And what about Maasai dataset? Is MKK full genomic SNP set (as opposed to a HapMap subset) available?

    FGS of MKK is available at Complete Genomics

    The argument for OoA is based on lower levels of genetic diversity observed outside of Africa, which is supported by ALL whole genome sequencing experiments of global contemporary human populations. This is NOT in dispute.

    Higher levels of genetic diversity in Africa do not support Out of Africa. There are probably higher levels of genetic diversity in NYC compared to most places of the planet, but that does not prove Out-of-NYC.

    It is clear now, that admixture has played a role in elevated African diversity levels, and this includes admixture between modern African groups, between Africans and Eurasians, and between modern and archaic African groups. Until all that is sorted out, the “argument from diversity” is no longer convincing.

  • http://johnhawks.net/weblog John Hawks

    The argument for OoA is based on lower levels of genetic diversity observed outside of Africa, which is supported by ALL whole genome sequencing experiments of global contemporary human populations. This is NOT in dispute.

    This is in fact a much weaker statement of the second argument I gave above, that variation outside Africa is largely a subset of variation within Africa. Again, since the 1990′s, it has been clear that this pattern does not require a recent replacement, or even a large-scale migration out of Africa, since it is consistent with larger long-term population size or greater population structure within Africa. There is quite a long literature on this topic beginning with Harpending, Relethford and Takahata, and to which I have made some small contribution.

    Please, before you resort to CAPITAL LETTERS you need to read some theory.

    I have always favored the hypothesis that most of the ancestry of today’s people traces to Africa before 100,000 years ago. And I have consistently been a vocal multiregionalist. I see no contradiction here.

  • Dm

    MKK is available at Complete Genomics
    Thanks, Dienekes! A gig of tar per sample, oh my. But whatever works…

  • Jim Greenwood

    “I do want to be clear here that I think Richard Klein and his camp are free to feel aggrieved.”

    It’s fine for Klein to to FEEL aggrieved, but publicly calling the other side “irresponsible” says more about Klein than about the evidence on the two sides of the issue. It sounds as if Klein thinks paleoanthropologists should be some sort of arbiter of human origins research. Does he want geneticists to check in with him before publishing? Who should paleoanthropologists check in with?

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    Coalescence times are for individual loci; by chance, due to a variety of stochastic processes such as incomplete lineage sorting, any given gene tree can have deep coalescence times

    dude, you don’t need to review population genomics with me ;-) why don’t you throw in balancing selection at loci with frequency dependent dynamics, while we’re at it?

    for what i’m alluding to, go to page 36 of the pdf, and look at the divergence (more interested in the relative rather than absolute value):

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/extref/nature09710-s1.pdf

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #14, it was the masai/MKK sample. the fraction decreased in relation to proportion eurasian ancestry.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #12, i don’t think it’s purposeful.

  • ss

    @RazibKhan I’m glad you appreciate the subtleties of pop gen! :) I am always concerned that demographic studies ignore forces such as balancing selection and selection studies ignore demographics (although Mark Beaumont is doing cool work in addressing that) Looking at table of relative divergence of human populations with Neanderthal (I think you mean table S6.2 on p35, not p36), there is an undeniable pattern of increased divergence, but the authors caution-

    “…these standard errors underestimate the true uncertainty. First, since we calibrate all estimates to San-Yoruba and human-chimpanzee genetic divergence, our standard errors do not reflect our statistical uncertainty about these quantities. Second, the systematic errors may be larger than the standard errors. For example, the Denisova and the Neandertal DNA samples were processed and aligned differently. ”

    Thus, given the lack of reasonable confidence intervals, literally interpreting the relationships may be misleading. Given the Herculean amount of data processing involved in getting reasonable low-fold coverage from ancientDNA, this discrepancy could be pretty significant and should color any literal interpretation of the numbers.

    @JohnHawks It’s unclear what your alternative hypothesis actually is and how it is specifically different from the OoA. I feel that the added emphasis is necessary because the reality is that the current consensus in the genetics community with respect to human origins supports a “leaky” OoA model. This is supported with data and by papers that have tested the alternative multi-regional model- http://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17614.full

    Given the high visibility of this blog, it is worth ensuring that lay people are informed fairly. Also, ad hominem arguments about my understanding of population genetics aren’t necessary in this kind of forum.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #6, you make some fair points. to be honest…this blog is not totally well geared toward a public as wide ranging as the new york times. probably someone like carl zimmer or ed yong is more well placed to respond.

  • blindboy

    I teach a Human Evolution course to a senior high school class. It is really very difficult to give a balanced view given the rapidly changing evidence and the different interpretations placed on it. This is especially true as they have to sit an external exam. I often wonder if the personal opinions of the markers influence their marking.
    I used to teach the Klein Out Of Africa view as the dominant hypothesis but have moved to the Multi-Regional hypothesis since the data on Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA came in. The difficulty arises in simultaneously teaching them the hypothesis and the supporting evidence while trying to get them to accept that this is only the state of the present evidence and not the final word on the subject. Reading some of the contributions here I think that perhaps they have the same difficulty as my students.

  • Sandgroper

    I had this concern – my daughter is currently majoring in Biochem and Molecular Biol at university, and I was worried about personal bias/dated knowledge/how well the lecturers/examiners might be up to date, but she tells me it’s not a problem; that they are all keeping up and citing the most recent pubs in an objective and balanced way. She reads this Blog and others, and plenty of open access online pubs, so she’s not just a ‘victim’ of whatever her lecturers tell her, and she’s happy that they are ‘on it’.

    I hope the same is true for high school level. I don’t know.

    The problem with the NYT story is that it is selling the picture as one of two different disciplines with sets of contradictory evidence who are effectively invalidating each other, so ‘ya can’t trust science’, when that is not the situation at all. It plays into a common mischaracterisation/misunderstanding of science which is pushed by people who have motives for discrediting science. I’m not saying the NYT is deliberately doing that, but by not adequately researching the story, they are having that effect.

  • http://johnhawks.net/weblog John Hawks

    the current consensus in the genetics community with respect to human origins supports a “leaky” OoA model. This is supported with data and by papers that have tested the alternative multi-regional model- http://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17614.full

    I disagree that “leaky replacement” is a consensus, in fact I have heard the words spoken by only a handful of people. It is a nice sound bite, but it depends a lot on the idea of a late migration. Most archaeological facts are pointing to early and repeated dispersals.

    The Fagundes paper is indeed interesting — from 2007, it rejected a version of multiregional evolution by the first argument I listed above; the coalescence times of human genes are too low to have been consistent with a large population spread across three continents. Interestingly, it draws its definition of multiregional evolution from Templeton, cites no one else, and defines its demographic model without reference to any other paper. It would have been quite trivial to fit the same data with a multiregional model using differential population sizes, which would have the advantage of predicting the 2010 results that showed Neandertal gene flow into later populations.

  • Charles Nydorf

    Back in the ’80′s when geneticists began to apply their tools to human origins they started out seeking to test, and, hopefully support the hypotheses put forward in more traditional disciplines; archeology, paleontology and linguistics. So geneticists viewed things through the lenses of then popular theories like the Aurignacian modern human cultural revolution, the express train to Polynesia, Clovis first and the Greenberg’s Amerindian. Over time, as genetic methods and data grew and evolved geneticists began to put forward and test their own hypotheses.

  • http://sjespositoweblog.blogspot.com S.J. Esposito

    Charles Nydorf (27), but that’s not what’s going on here. You–and the NY Times article–make it seem as if geneticists are now operating totally detached from other aspects of paleoanthropology, and that’s just not the case. Just because geneticists reach a conclusion that’s not supported by a majority of paleoanthropologists does not mean that they’re no longer testing the hypotheses put forth by the greater paleoanthropological community.

  • toto

    I have always favored the hypothesis that most of the ancestry of today’s people traces to Africa before 100,000 years ago. And I have consistently been a vocal multiregionalist. I see no contradiction here.

    Er… What exactly do you call OoA, and what exactly do you call Multi-regionalism?

  • http://du-cote-de-chez-elysia-chlorotica.blogspot.ch/ Hans

    I thought the old debate “Out of Africa versus Multi-regionalism” was now largely outdated.

    I quote John Hawks:

    There was clearly a dispersal of African genes into the rest of the world during the Late Pleistocene, sometime between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. Living people everywhere on Earth derive more than 90 percent of their genes from African populations who lived 100,000 years ago. That much is plain.

    Neanderthal live!

    I totally agree with this proposal. The introgression line of “archaic” is non-negligible and even important (10% is by no means insignificant), on the other hand there have been significant and relatively recent, expansions from Africa who significantly shaped the genome of modern humans (yes I know we have no clear definition of what is a modern human).

    I think we should go beyond the old oppositions between “Out of Africa” and “multi-regionalism” because both are partially true. So as Dr Hawks I see no contradiction. Today we can be a multiregional proponent and favored the hypothesis that most of the ancestry of today’s people traces to Africa. And we can also be a OoA proponent and admit substantial introgressions of some “archaic” lineages in Eurasia but also in Africa.

    By the way I think that’s also the spirit of the present Razib Khan’s article! ;-)

    PS: Sorry for my bad English (not my Mother Tongue)

  • Charles Nydorf

    @28
    To say that geneticists are now formulating and testing their own hypotheses does not imply that they are no longer testing hypotheses put forward by people from other disciplines.

  • http://sjespositoweblog.blogspot.com S.J. Esposito

    (31), in the context of this thread, it sure as hell seems that way.

  • unknown

    @ Razib Khan

    Interestingly enough the Yoruba also have an increased affinity to Neanderthals in comparison to the Luhya, internal African population structure?

    @ John Hawks

    Can you explain the Neanderthal affinities of the three groups in more detail? Do the Yoruba and Maasai share a similar Neanderthal affinity?

  • Sandgroper

    #30 I think we’re saying that the old simple Klein OoA model of a single dispersion event c. 60,000 yBP that resulted in replacement of archaic human lineages without interbreeding is demonstrably not correct. Also that the ‘fast coastal route to Australia’ is looking decidedly shaky and improbable.

  • http://dienekes.blogspot.com Dienekes

    The idea that most Eurasian ancestry within the last 100,000 years is African is most likely false.

    Not only because we now have good archaeological evidence for links between Africa and Eurasia before 100,000 years, while we have absolutely no evidence for the conventional period of ~60,000years BP.

    But, also because even African farmers (YRI) diverge from Eurasians >100ky ago (http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2011_Li_Nature.pdf) EVEN when one uses the evolutionary mutation rate which is twice faster than the directly observed autosomal mutation rate.

    Note that Yoruba almost certainly did NOT differentiate from Eurasians so early: their Y-chromosomes all belong to the DE-YAP clade which has about half that age. So, how can they appear to be so diverged when they share very recent common ancestry with Eurasians: it’s simple, the >100,000 divergence date assumes a tree model and is a palimpsest of a _recent_ common ancestry with Eurasians + absorption of _very old_ West African ancestry.

    And, of course, one has to wonder why modern humans in Africa would start differentiating from each other around 150,000 years ago (if we take African hunter-gatherers into account) at the latest, and yet they waited around another 100,000+ years to mix with their next-door archaic neighbors. Apparently, they mixed with Eurasian archaics right away, so why do both Hammer and Lachance find evidence of _recent_ archaic introgression.

    The solution to this problem is quite simple and it’s called massive population replacement in Africa by Eurasian back-migrants over the last few tens of thousands of years.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »