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.

Back again

I find myself back in Davis again. The past 5 weeks somehow slipped past, and New York City is again something of a dream thatI think I might have had. That said I do remember very clearly the 100 year record-breaking blizzard that I witnessed firsthand from my friend’s loft apartment near SOHO. I awoke to see the city a white wonderland, and people playing in the streets as if we were in a vacation area in the wilderness… at least until the street cleaners came through and cleared the streets of snow. I also got to witness the record amounts of snow melt and disappear in mere days.

I can’t tell you the number of times that I heard people blame the entire week on global warming. It seems that if any of the science establishments media drives has actually gotten through to the populus general, it’s global warming. Even with the onslaught of naysayers like Michael Crichton, the public has latched on to the idea of the heating of the earth, and the changes that it might cause for our weather patterns.

Now, I personally am still on the fence with regards to what is actually causing said warming because the evidence for natural warming versus human causes still seems weak in either direction. However, the evidence does seem to point to one general trend at the moment. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the oceans and atmosphere are warming, and the glaciers are melting, hence it seems that global warming is occurring.

One of my minions sent a link last week that was originally from the Wall Street Journal with a really interesting article about the current debate about global warming that’s going on within the normally closeknit community of hurricane researchers. Really a fascinating read with some insight into how much the issue of who or what is to blame for the current state of the atmosphere is affecting the world of scientific research.

Is it really a losing battle?

I feel that it is ever so important to comment on this story I found in the newswires. It states that abortion rights activists are facing a losing battle. Now, I know that there are many people in our government who are openly anti-abortion, including our president, and that we are looking at an anti-abortionist being voted into the supreme court. But, it can’t be a losing battle. Our country seems to be evenly split in terms of opinion, but many polls fail to recognize the huge numbers of people who have no opinion, or don’t think it should be a matter of discussion in our government.

The head of NARAL has even said that she believes “Roe will be dismantled.” It’s a future I don’t want to face, or have my children face. Since public sentiment seems so evenly balanced, it’s obviously a radical few who are pushing their agendas. And, there has got to be a way to overcome the minority voice with rational thought. If people have any sentiment on this issue, they should be writing their congressmen. For even though, there may be a biased opinion in our supreme court that doesn’t mean that legislation will be passed. If people voice their opinion like the few who are so vocal in opposition, there will be progress.

There probably are changes afoot. I’m sorry to see such a devolution in our populous that we are allowing religious sentiment interfere with public policy. Anti-abortionists want us to think of the children, which is fine. I say think of the children and don’t bring them into the world if they are unwanted. Don’t bring them into a world that won’t care for them. Think of the children and have some decency to give them a chance at a good life. Get the politicians to make laws that will protect children, their education, and their futures. Change the infrastructure before taking away rights and you won’t need to take those rights away. Science is learning more and more about our development, and that information should inform us, enabling us to make better decisions that don’t take away a woman’s right to choose, and protect children at the same time.

I thought so…

I am pleased to report that scientists have verified what most of us probably knew to be true all along… sex relieves stress. AND… sex can help relax you before a stressful event, like public speaking. This isn’t any kind of sex though. It’s that good old fashioned penetrative kind that works best, especially for women. So, I know what I’ll be doing in preparation for my next speaking engagement.

Knew it all along

So a recent study out of Emory University has figured out what we should have known all along. Democrats and Republicans are never going to agree. Why you ask? Well, it seems that extremely politically polarized individuals don’t think rationally. fMRI scans of the brains of decidedly Democrat or Republican individuals who saw pictures of politicians and bits of speeches before the 2004 election showed that the people used the emotional centers of the brain rather than those areas associated with reasoning.

Hence, the reason why the two political parties will never agree on anything… they don’t actually think about anything. It’s all about how we feel.

The question I have to ask is whether this makes Independents more reasonable people politically. Food for thought.

Happy New Year!

As I start this new year trying to avoid resolutions having to do with exercise or diet (because I will surely fail myself within mere weeks), I am resolving to at least keep up with this here weblog. I finally have a reliable computer and web access. I have no excuse. I read a lot about science and stuff, so I should write about my thoughts every once in a while, non?

My biggest hope for this year is that we can escape some of the evolution/creationism shouting matches that were so ugly last year. We had a huge political victory for evolution in the Dover schools decision of mid-December (you can read the entire decision here). I have to say that the judge makes some eloquent well-thought statements. Although, on the other hand, I am sorry that science is being allowed into the hands of the judges and politicians at all. I mean, honestly, who better understands the definition and application of the word “theory”? A politician, judge, or scientist?

Regardless of what I want to see, it seems that this year may be a repeat of the “my team’s better than your team” mentality that we’ve seen the past few years, and that came to a head this past year. The race for Texas governor has suddenly become a proving ground for Intelligent Design. The current Repubican governor of the state has decided he knows what makes a theory better than some judges and scientists we know by announcing that ID is a scientific theory and should be included in science curriculums.

I’m sure that he’s not the only politician out there who’s going to jump on the bandwagon either. The Dover decision, while precedent setting, is not binding in other states. So, as schoolboards around the country come up for re-election and as curricula come up for review, we may see the Dover trials play out many more times before we reach the end of this road.

The assault upon science will continue as long as there are people who think that it threatens their way of life, and as scientists and educated people I think that we have an obligation to speak loudly and to make the truth behind science heard by the general populus. The zealots won’t ever listen, but most people make good decisions when they have the facts honestly presented to them. We need to stay away from shouting matches that will make people turn their heads and stop listening, and instead engage the public in the dialog that will shape the future of this country. As scientists and educated people, let’s resolve to stand strong against the onslaught this year, and not let twisted interpretations blur the messages we send.

And the Scientists Speak

Dr. Alan Leschner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has issued a statement regarding the decision of the Kansas school board regarding their science curriculum. I’ve had the chance to meet Dr. Leschner through the AAAS Fellowship I received, and this is a topic of utmost importance to him, definitely not one to be taken lightly by anyone.

There is no debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, and whether it should be taught in science classes. The media has been fueling the fire of the Creationism v. Evolution war where there should be no fire. Similarly to what is happening in other political arenas in our country, a few fringe goups are using the machinery of our society very efficiently to insert doubt about science into the educational forum. These people have an agenda that they will pursue until the end, whereas we as scientists haven’t taken the threat to our children and the future of science seriously. We have been sitting on our lofty laurels secure in our knowledge that science in all its objectivity is the obvious truth. And, just like the Democratic party we are being run over as a result of our arrogance.

Well, sorry folks, we have a fight on our hands. We need to get out and inform the public. They need to know that within the scientific community, there is no controversy between evolution and creation. Science in the science classes and creation in the religion or philosphy classes.

And, we push ever onward into the dark night…

Continue reading »