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.

Mormons on the side of science

It seems the fight for science in education is not yet over. Utah is currently considering a bill that would basically require teachers to “disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer” when introducing evolution in science classes. This is a similar idea to the Dover, Pennsylvania case that was recently shot down by the legal system, and many other bills that states around the country are still considering. Does it never end?

Well, there’s no end in sight yet, bit it might be a changing playing field. In Utah the majority of people subscribe to the Mormon faith, the Church of Latter Day Saints, which doesn’t have much of a problem with science or even evolution for that matter. However, passage of this bill would send the message that Utah is pro-intelligent design. That would be a funny event because Mormon’s don’t believe in ID, they have different beliefs entirely. So, Mormon Senators are beginning to wake up to the idea that passing this bill might not be such a good idea… for their religion.

Now, another religiously based bill is also up for debate, which will promote prayer in schools. That’s something that a lot of religious people would like to see happen, but according to an article the NT Times the Mormon lawmakers are starting to realize that their religion is in a minority in this country, and that by allowing Mormon prayer in their schools they are promoting regional religous majorities having prayer in their schools. That wouldn’t do at all now, would it? Little Mormon Bobby going to school in a Protestant district, and having to say Protestant prayers?

University of Utah Professor Kirk Jowers had this to say:

“It was kind of a realization that if you push to have prayer in school, then outside of Utah, the prayer would not typically be a Mormon’s prayer, so is that road you want go down?”

These two bills go hand in hand in a way. Although, people say that the evolution bill is about science, not religion, it comes down to religion in the end. And, a minority religion may wind up on the side of science inadvertently by simply refusing to promote a view that goes against their religion (i.e. intelligent design). The more that these miorities in the national religious scene realize that the zealots within the majority Christian Right are going to eventually affect their freedoms to worship/believe as they like with sneaky tactics like playing on religious sentiment to get bills passed into laws, the sooner science as it is taught in schools will be free of the politics game.

Ah, yes… The Self-Control

According to this article, the science of how we develop could go a long way to inform educational policies and programs.Just think… we could have schools that actually work to teach our children rather than beat them into submission and underachievement.

Oh, and if that weren’t enough to keep you busy thinking. Here’s something else to do with your time. I think I’ve just about got it perfected.

Why Does Everything Have to be Political?

This is from an email that I received recently:

Remember that Stanford scientific ³genius² Paul Ehrlich and his prophecies
of ³the end is near?² Well a funny thing happened on the way to disaster.
We¹re still …you never know. Right?

Now another ³scientific genius² has materialized in the person of Al Gore,
member of the lowest third of his class at Harvard. Like Michael Moore, the
believers yearn, nay, are desperate, to report on such matters as this:

³Because of melting ice caps and glaciers, “The End Is Near!” But melting
Arctic ice won’t raise sea levels any more than the melting ice in your
drink makes your glass overflow.

³The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of
global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says
added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world
because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a
longer harvest season.

³Why don’t we hear about this part of the global warming argument?

“It’s the money!” says Dr. Baliunas. “Twenty-five billion dollars in
government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If
scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global
warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet
works, there wouldn’t be as much money to study it.”

³And the politicians would have one less excuse to take control of our
lives.²

Quotes excerpted from an article by Jon Stossel.

I feel very strongly about the misinformation that is being disseminated regarding the science behind global warming. So, I’m posting my response to the email.

Several problems with the excerpts:

1) true, ice floating in water will not raise water levels because ice actually takes up more space than water. So, ice floating in the form of icebergs, etc. in the Arctic will not affect water levels. However, water in the form of ice on land will run-off into the oceans when it melts, and add water to the water, thus increasing the total amount of water. The water level will therefore increase. There is a LOT of ice on land in Greenland and in Antarctica, which could significantly affect the levels of our oceans. Current research shows Greenland’s glaciers to be melting at a significantly increasing rate.

2) So-called doom-mongers aren’t ignoring those other scientists, rather the scientific evidence on the side of global warming is becoming overwhelming. Sallie Baliunas is but one skeptic. True that she is an astophysicist, but I don’t know what that has to do with plant biology. While it may seem logical that an increase in CO2 would be beneficial to plants, recent studies have shown that increases in CO2 actually hamper the ability of plants to respire. They grow less, and convert less CO2 to O2 as CO2 increases. I challenge Jon Stossel to write a less biased atricle by talking to more scientists who are actually on the forefront of atmospheric and biological research. He might actually learn something.

3) The statement “warmer winters would give farmers a longer growing season” is a fallacy. Global warming is defined as an increase in the average temperatures worldwide. It makes no prediction that there will be longer, warmer winters or even longer warmer summers in any one place. There is no way to estimate what will happen to the areas in which farmers grow crops currently. The midwest could end up with massive glaciers, thus putting a lot of farmers out of work. There is no way to know what will happen to the climate, or the day to day temerature changes for that matter, in any one region on the planet for certain at this point in time.

4) Governemtal science grants are given to people with worthwhile project ideas and hypotheses. Scientists are publishing the results of their studies no matter what conclusions are to be made from the data. The government is not pushing scientists to publish pro-global warming papers. In fact, most governmental actions have tried to cover up or discredit the mounting scientific evidence that global warming is in fact becoming a serious issue. If anything, the oil and coal lobbies have a lot more money invested in the outcome of this debate than the scientists.

5) I have a question to those who argue against human involvement in global warming. So what if we aren’t fully responsible? But, what if our actions could mitigate the effects of the warming that is occurring? What if we can do something now to preserve the earth as we know it for future generations? Shouldn’t we do something if we can?

We are a part of this planet, and there are so many humans (with numbers still growing) that our actions do effect it. It is egotism and greed that have blinded so many of us against the probablility that we are damaging the only planet we have to live on.

This is not a political issue, or at least it shouldn’t be. This is a human issue. People like John Stossel ought to be ashamed of themselves for spreading unscientific myths in order to propagate divisive political discord.

Envirovideo’s Galore

With all the extreme views on both sides of the issue, it’s a miracle anyone can make sense out of the information about global warming being forced down people’s throats. I’ve swiped a few videos from YouTube that held side to side really demonstrate the the obsurdity of the situation playing itself out on our televisions. But, thank goodness for the rise of the internet as a way to disseminate information. Hopefully, people will be able to use this rapidly developing medium to properly educate themselves enough to separate the chaff from the wheat. There is so much potential for a re-emergence of popular intelligence from behind the soporific curtain of mass media. I can’t wait to see how the world changes.

Take a look for yourself…

Continue reading »

Braniacs Unite!

Is it really true that science is under attack? There are the vocal religious opponents out there who in the name of the almighty debate scientific findings that support the theory of evolution or the use of stem cells. But, that opposition is the minority, and with education science can find a solid base of support. There is a quiet storm out there filled with all the people who have yet to make up their minds on the issues that are under such religious scrutiny. These people simply need to be educated before they will feel comfortable making a decision that they will take with them to the polls. However, the trick will be convincing them that science is interesting, and that they will “get it” if they only take a bit of time to listen. I truly believe that it is the job of scientists to reach out to these silent individuals. Science in this country will be up against the wall unless scientists don’t change the way that they think about educating the public.

Here’s a great, eye-opening article from the Public Library of Science that discusses many of these ideas in greater detail.

Agree to Disagree

This past weekend I had a most interesting airplane conversation. After hours already on planes and in airport bars I at last landed in my seat on the final leg of my journey to Miami. Mind you I had plenty of liquor in me at this point to be feeling quite conversational. So, that probably has much to do with the conversation that followed. I finished reading an article relating a debate between people of three differing viewpoints on the future of humanity and hopes for biotechnology to help us reach that future. The article got me thinking all sorts of things, and I really wanted someone else to read it so that I could have a discussion.

The man sitting next to me on the plane was reading an article about aging and the ability of humans to live longer lives. Perfect, I thought. He’s right in line with what I’m thinking right now. Maybe he’ll want to read this interesting article. Only too late did I notice that the magazine he was holding looked suspiciously like the literature that Jehova’s Witnesses bring with them when they come knocking at your door. Oh, the floodgates had been opened. Dumb, dumb, dumb, were the words reverberating through my head as the conversation took an ominous turn into belief in God.

Well, as it turned out, the conversation went surprisingly well. In the end, after debating our differing beliefs in science, evolution, and alll things in between, we came to the conclusion that we could agree to disagree. It didn’t mean that he would stop pursuing the goal of Witnesses to convert everyone to the “one true faith”. But, rather that he realized that I was a lost cause. I in turn realized that he would never stop believing the words written in the literature he was holding in his hands.

The Jehova’s Witness publications do a fascinating job of twisting science to agree with the beliefs of their chuch. Everything that the man I was talking to had learned about science was from those little magazines, which by the way are written some governing body, a Jehova’s Witness information council of sorts, who decides what their flock should learn and what should be ommitted. He didn’t question a single statement in his little pamphlet. Quite the contrary, he used it to back up his points during our conversation.

I have a feeling that many Witnesses like this man I met on the plane have never questioned the things that they read. Never questioned that everything they learn comes from their church, or even some group of people who decide what they need to know for them. This man I met runs a study group in which he uses the Jehova Witness literature to teach others about the workings of God in this world, and how the flock can live amidst the constant advancement of technology, incorporating science into their daily lives. Did you know that Witnesses aren’t allowed to have blood transfusions? If in an accident, they can recieve saline and drugs to make up for the lost volume, but no blood. I told the man about a new blood substitute that is being tested in some cities. He said that he didn’t know if it would be allowed, but that his church leaders would give them guidance in good time.

Nice not to have to make your own decidions…

He was a nice man. We had a pleasant conversation. I think he felt sorry for me and my lack of belief. I felt sorry for him and his lack of a need to question. So, we came to an impasse where there could be no further discussion. I went back to my wine and biotechnology, and he to his literature. There was nothing more to say, just an unspoken agreement to disagree.

I wish a lot of disagreements in life could end as my conversation did. Nicely.

I Didn’t Do it This Time

While many times in the past I might have been guilty of making fun of Canadian scientists on my radio program, this time the Canadians have taken care of it themselves.

And, I’ll takethis moment to say that I love Canadian scientists, Australian scientists, and scientists of any nationality. Some are just easier to poke fun at than others.

How ethical is it?

I’m sure that many will have seen this story by now, but I find it amazing to think that things like this still go on.

In a study of an experimental blood substitute, trauma victims receive the subsitute from paramedics instead of blood. The blood substitute is then administered well after the victim arrives at the hospital. The ethical sticking point is not that the victims are recieving the substitute in the first place because otherwise they would often simply receive saline, but that they don’t recieve a transfusion of regular blood once they get to the hospital. Being a trauma victim they don’t have the ability to consent to the therapy in the first place, but the idea is that the substitute should be better than just saline. However, not receiving a blood transfusion as soon as possibe at a hospital where blood is available is technically denying the person treatment.

I don’t see how any review board thought that this design was a good idea. It denies treatment to people who have not consented to being part of a study in the first place. Um, yea… someone screwed up. It’s too bad because it will probably reflect poorly on the company, the company stock will drop, the company will go out of business, and we still won’t have a good replacement for blood. And, we need a good replacement. Not enough people give blood (me among them). We are constantly lacking in supplies. Without blood, trauma victims are expected to make it on sugar water and blood thickeners that really don’t cut the mustard.

It’s just too bad that people didn’t think before starting this study. It could have been done so much better.

Saving the environment… one hummer at a time

A story caught my interest today basically because the heroes would rather starve than support Hummer. The thesis is that starving artists, in this case musicians, aren’t willing to sell out their music to a gas guzzling, environment un-friendly corporate car company. It’s nice to know there are still a few people out there willing to stick to their morals even in the face of thousands of dollars of extra income and the increased exposure that licensing a song for an advertising campaign would bring. I wonder if the ad gurus for Toyota’s Prius are keeping their eyes open for the opportunities that Hummer misses.