The Lesson

I’ve been trying to fit both movie trailers into one post, but to no avail. So, here is the ID version of Flock of Dodos, Ben Stein’s Expelled. You can find a rebuttal to Expelled at expelledexposed.com. I also found this rebuttal to Flock of Dodos interesting.

It all just goes to show that good editing can tell just about any story.

God and Science

Where does God fit in the science of today?

I’m sitting on the floor at the 2008 Experimental Biology meeting listening to the movie, Flock Of Dodos. The movie is the evolutionist take on the debate between evolutionists and intelligent design proponents. The movie is not readily available many places, so I am really enjoying this chance to see what the science side of the story is trying to say to the world.

The most interesting comment made in the movie so far is that much religions today view God as filling the gaps that science can’t explain. And, so as science fills more and more of those gaps, God must get smaller and smaller. This type of religious indoctrination inevitably forces our children to make one of two choices: 1) disbelieve science, or 2) have a crisis of faith that leads them to leave religion altogether. Is this the issue that we want to force?

Not that I want to tell anyone how to teach religion, but it just seems that science and religion don’t have to be so opposed. Stop teaching that God explains everything that we can’t explain with science, and maybe the whole intelligent design thing will go away.

That said, even though Flock of Dodos is a very well made film, the ID and Creationist groups seem to be doing a much better job of publicizing their ideas. Maybe the scientists should take a lesson…

Making Science Political

I know many people out there like their science and politics to mix about as much as a red sock in a load of white laundry. However, the two are inextricably linked no matter how furious the protestations.

This is one of the reasons that I have made The Weird From Washington with Dr. Michael Stebbins a regular part of the TWIS line-up. Politicians are making decisions about our lives that should be informed by science, yet science remains the red-headed stepchild of the United States government. Science is ignored. It is attacked. It is misused and mistreated.

There is a light in the woods, and we will see how bright it can burn over the next year as scientists and bloggers band together to force science into the Presidential debate. Will independent media be able to put science and the environment on big media’s plate? Will it become an issue outside of the halls of academia?

Support the ScienceDebate2008.

Science in America

The October issue of Discover magazine had a series of articles about the state of science education in America written by various well-known scientists and experts in the educational system (a great read if you haven’t seen it yet). This month, I turned to the letters to the editor section of the magazine to find the responses from the magazine’s readership. Most were pretty much what I expected, “Thank you for publishing…”, ” No wonder we are losing the lead…”. Then I came to a letter in which the writer expressed dismay at a comment written by Lisa Randall. The letter, I believe, strikes at the heart of the disconnect that is felt between scientists and a good proportion of the American public.

Here is Lisa Randall’s “disturbing” statement:

“It is incredible that in this advanced nation we let beliefs impede scientific research.” Continue reading »

Filed under Science & Politics | Comments (3)

Incredulity

Oh, dear. Dr. Watson has gone and done it again. Now, he’s known for being quite the contrarian and for making controversial statements that get people up in arms. When I interviewed Dr. Watson on TWIS a couple of weeks ago there was no hint of his opinions on race.

Anyhoo, he’s stirred himself up one bee’s nest of trouble by insinuating that people of African descent are less intelligent than anyone else. He bases this idea on the hypothesis that there should be differences between peoples evolving in disparate locations.

“There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.”

Sure, ok. I can accept that statement. But, not this one:

“”all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours… people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

He’s probably basing the comment on the idea that because whites and blacks evolved in different places with different cognitive demands they probably don’t have the same intelligence. Each might have specific cognitive strengths or weaknesses. But, the way he phrased the second bit just comes across as discriminatory. It sounds as if he means different is lesser. Any intelligent person should realize that A+B does not = C in this case.

Continue reading »

Communications

Every so often an email from one of the TWIS minions enters my inbox that I feel requires a special response… more than the usual “thanks for writing and for listening to my show.” I’m posting such an email with my response because I think it such an important issue.

Subject: is TWIS biased?

Hi Kirsten, attention grabbing subject line huh? Been a listener for quite a while now, and love the show. There have been one or two things that you guys have talked about lately that seem to me to be a little biased. In one breath you may be talking about faulty science from drug companies, but in the next you then go and support faulty science from government.

What I mean by this, is not to say that you are intentionally doing this, but you seem to only be looking at the facts from one side. For example, vaccination, you have reported on two topics: the HPV vaccine for young/teenage girls, and the MMR and Autism arbitration.

If you look into these subjects there is much more beneath the surface. For example, in Japan (and several other countries) they were so convienced at the evidence of MMR causing autism (ASD) that they stopped giving the vaccine, and paid out compensation to many families. Further, there are studies showing that Thimersal (sp? the mercury/additive) in vaccines is very harmful indeed.

When you delve a little into the HPV vaccine, you will find that already studies show no point to this vaccine, and that it kills many people who are vaccinated; also some evidence that it actually causes cancer.

Now I’m not against vaccines per say, but I do think that unessesary vaccination against things like the flu are just money makers for Big Phrama. I generally try to balance everything I read so that I don’t rule out any possibility, however there comes a time when you have to decide on certain things.

I’m not sure that giving your opinion that vaccines for pregnat mothers or young children is entirely safe ground, as there has been research showing definite causitive links to illness. What I’m trying to say is that if you are going to report the science, perhaps you could report both sides of the story, so that people can decide for themselves. The trouble with most science is that it is mostly theoretical, and people get fed up with being told that ‘this is right’ or ‘these are the facts’, when in most cases there are no definitive answers.

Here is my response:
Thanks so much for writing and for questioning the things that you hear. I agree with your concern, and especially your comment that “there are no definitive answers.” Science is always redefining the world around us, which I happen to think is one of the most wonderful things about science. However, it can be frustrating when trying to make decisions about whether or not to vaccinate your child. There is no right answer, and ultimately you really do have to decide for yourself.

It is obvious that you understand that there are many people working on scientific questions, thus the statement that we are only “looking at the facts from one side.” There are always multiple sides to any story. And, on the show we do try to report as many sides as we are aware of. Yet, the scientific ideas that become general knowledge are those stories in which the majority of evidence supports one particular side.

In the case of vaccines, especially the hypothesized thimerosal-autism link, I do not believe the evidence that we have reported to be overly one-sided. Scientific evidence is not the same as opinion. The scientific evidence in this situation does not support a link between thimerosal and autism. I will not give credit to unfounded beliefs simply in order to appear unbiased to those who willfully ignore the scientific evidence. That is not how science works. I would undermine my own credibility if I reported opinions rather than evidence.

The examples that you provided as evidence for the other side of the story are not accurate. Japan was not convinced of the MMR vaccine causing autism. They provided compensation to families because their vaccine was found to cause meningitis, not autism. Yes, several countries have removed thimerosal as a preservative from their MMR vaccines, including the United States, but no reduction in the number of autism cases has been found following its removal. Specifically, in Denmark and Sweden cases continued to rise. There is no evidence that thimerosal is harmful in humans. There is some evidence that it may lead to auto-immune sensitivity in mice.

As for the HPV vaccine, studies are showing that it is effective at keeping people from becoming infected by specific strains of HPV that have been shown to cause cervical cancer, effectively removing the risk of developing cervical cancer from that source. I don’t think that that reveals the vaccine to be pointless. That “it kills many people” is inaccurate. If I remember correctly, there have been 3 reports of fatalities within the study population since the studies began (that’s out of over 11,000 females), but these deaths have not been conclusively linked to the vaccine. The group, Judicial Watch, who has publicized the fatalities is a legal organization with a stated conservative mission. Interestingly, they are also involved in litigation to block the morning-after pill and RU-486, both related to female reproductive rights (the HPV vaccine is related to reproduction as well since the virus is mainly transmitted via sexual activity). I haven’t actually heard anything regarding the cancer-causing allegation.

I’m not saying that vaccines should or shouldn’t be mandatory, but we do need to at least continue the conversation. These are two cases where the science is sound, but there are definitely other factors involved that need to be taken into account. People are not robots. We have beliefs and emotions that guide us regardless of what science supports. So, we as a people need to weigh the costs and benefits carefully before jumping into legal mandates that may have serious health consequences. Science and a society’s beliefs need to come to a compromise in order for science to really be of any help.

Here are a couple of articles that might be of some help:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7076
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-20.html

Thanks for writing. This (journalistic and scientific integrity) is an issue that I think is incredibly important. I hope that I’ve clarified where I’m coming from when I report on these topics, and I hope that this has been a useful email.

All the best,
–kirsten

I really do hope that I have started a beneficial communication with this email. I know there are many issues out there in which people promote one or another viewpoint, some of which are supported by scientific evidence and others not. A question raised in the article in the eskeptic newsletter is how do people contend with such a quantity of information when they are not necessarily trained to do so? How does a non-scientist know to know that an information source isn’t credible, or that the “facts” in an article aren’t accurate, or that a study wasn’t rigorous? I can say, “you can trust me,” but there are 20 other people saying the same thing regarding a topic all with different sets of so-called factual information (and with different intentions).

People are going to believe what they want to believe, especially with respect to controversial or morally sensitive issues. So, why and how do we even begin to have a conversation in which scientists and non-scientists respect each other’s positions? How do we eventually reach a common ground?

US Beats Turkey

This story was just sent to me by TWIS minion John Nicholson. I’ve seen it before, but it continues to bring me no end of grief.

The US is almost last in its acceptance of the Theory of Evolution compared to the other nations polled in 2005. It does beat Turkey, and by a fairly wide margin, but come on… this is simply ridiculous. Our nation is definitely tailing other modernized nations by a significant margin.

I have a hard time accepting this information, even though it comes from a reliable source. The kicker is that over the past 20 years the US has become less certain of the Theory of Evolution. It just goes to show that a good PR campaign is all you need to sway the masses.

Finding this all rather depressing and gloomy. I’m off to search for more uplifting news.

Polarized

And, I don’t mean light. The global public, or at least the fraction of people who have heard of global warming, are rabidly polarized concerning 1) whether or not it’s happening and 2) if humans are actually involved. I can’t even think about discussing a scientific study relating to climate on my radio show without being bombarded with emails telling me that I need to be less biased, that I need to present both sides of the story, and that I “should be ashamed for violating your ’scientific principles’ by touting the latest toy of the oligarchy, designed to make you just that less in-control of your own fate.”

Really.

As I have stated previously in other locations, I would be thrilled if the science stories that passed my desk suggested anything other than the warming trend that we are currently experiencing, and I would report it. The fact is, that research is not prevalent. Indeed, not reporting news that doesn’t exist doesn’t make me biased. I would be more biased in the reporting of any story if I were (in the name of “fair and balanced reporting”) to search out the one person who doesn’t agree. Sure, it might be nice to know that someone doesn’t agree and why, but giving their views equal time or weight to the majority is dishonest.

Well, now the “other side” in the global warming arena has their chance at receiving equal weight. A documentarian named Martin Durkin has created a documentary called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” to compete with Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” I have not watched it myself, so cannot comment on its content or accuracy, but it has started quite the firestorm. Just reading the comments left in response to articles reviewing the program will let you know just how emotional an issue this has become on both sides.

Both sides cry foul and use emotional arguements to say that the other side is illogical and that science is being ignored in favor of politics and money. This emotional divisiveness is unfortunate because it will make any discussion of how to implement policy based on the science even more difficult than it already is. I promise to try to use my various avenues of communication to try to clear the political debris from the climate science so that people can better understand their world. Maybe it will help.

Laugh it Off

“All anyone can do,” he said, “is laugh.”
Talib al-Sudani, writer/creator of Iraqi comedy news program, “Hurry Up, He’s Dead”

Is that the human reaction? When things get so bad you can’t imagine them worse, do you laugh? Is this what separates us from other animals? Is our sense of humor our humanity?

It sure seems like people who take things too seriously, can’t take a joke, aren’t really helping to fix this mess we’re in, but rather are making it worse.

So, laugh… laugh and find a way out.

Politicians are NOT scientists

Urg… the whole stem cell bill issue makes me want to throw up. Here is an article from Wired correcting a few statements made by politicians in the course of debating the three bills that went up for vote last week. I swear politicians make me sick.