The Conference on World Affairs

Boulder doesn’t seem like such a worldly place from the outside. But, nestled at the base of the Flatirons on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, I have found one of the most intriguing assemblages of individuals I’ve ever come across outside of a big city.

The Conference on World Affairs is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together people from around the world and from diverse backgrounds to discuss the world. The majority of panels I’ve been assigned to discuss relate to science or media, which is appropriate. However, one panel I’m looking forward to tomorrow afternoon is on the topic:”When a Man Loves a Woman.”

I’m sure I know something about this topic, but my challenge is to decide exactly how to approach it.  Do I take from my background in neurophysiology and reduce love to its chemical reactions? Do I talk about birds? Do I stand up and sing? Or, talk about how much I like back-rubs?

I might incorporate some aspect of all the above ideas into my 10 minutes of monologue. We shall see…

In the meantime, I am enjoying meeting and engaging with the panel attendees and such esteemed associates as Sidney Perkowitz, Seth Shostak, Michelle Thaller, Alex Filippenko, Michael Chorost, Finton Steele, John Gliedman, Sanjoy Mahajan, Andy Ihnatko, and many, many more. Hopefully, I’ll come home inspired and full of ideas… not that I need any more running around my brain.

NCSE Executive Director Calls It Quits

After last week’s Texas School Board disappointment, Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says she’s tired of fighting this losing battle for evolution and critical inquiry in schools. She also mentioned that the Creationist politicians can teach whatever they want in science classes.

Heh. That’ll be the day.

What was actually said went more along these lines:

“Let’s be clear about this,” cautioned Dr. Scott. “This is a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory.”

She went on to say:

“The revised wording opens the door to creationism in the classroom and in the textbooks. The decisions will not only affect Texas students for the next ten years, but could result in watered-down science textbooks across the U.S. There’s a reason creationists are claiming victory.”

“Will publishers cave in to pressure from the Texas board to include junk science in their textbooks? It has happened before,” says Scott. “But textbooks that please the Texas board will be rejected in other states. Publishers will have to choose between junk science and real science.”

I hope that people like Dr. Scott continue to work against the insertion of politics into the science classroom because the attempts to compromise science education show no signs of fading away any time soon.

Happy April Fools Day, everyone.

Evolution Education in Texas

What is in a word?

Weakness.

What does it signify?

Well, to the debate taking place across the United States over science education standards it has come to mean much more than it should. Weakness is the word that is used to instill uncertainty in the minds of people. Because science is unable to know everything, then how could it know how we humans came to be? How can science have discovered the links from more primitive organisms to the complexity that makes us who we are? Uncertainty is a weakness in the minds of some people, and they would like an alternative view discussed.

The problem is that the science of evolution is not uncertain about the general process anymore. Over 100 years of scientific investigation have built the theory. There have been no studies that negate the process of evolution. Each study that brings new knowledge to the workings of the evolutionary process just make the theory richer.

What is viewed as weakness by some is actually a strength of science. Science has the capacity as a tool to make new discoveries.

The language intended to bring Creationism into the Texas classrooms will only serve to bring uncertainty about the scientific process. That is its intent — to undermine knowledge in favor of dogma.

If the intent of the Creationist members of the Texas school board is to allow critical thinking and knowledge seeking to thrive in the classroom, they should have accepted a motion to change the language from “teach the strengths and weaknesses” to “including discussing what is not fully understood in all fields of science.” But, they didn‘t.

So far, knowledge survives. But, just barely… with a vote of 7-7 yesterday, the language is supported by half of the Texas school board. That in itself is too much. The board is voting again today. Fingers crossed.

Update: The evolution specific amendment passed, 13 – 2, with the following wording: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

For up to the minute blogging from the Texas school board meeting check out the Texas Freedom Network.

Stem Cell Town Hall Fails Web 2.0

Last night, I attended the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s (CIRM) San Francisco Town Hall for stem cell science. In their words:

“The Town Forums provide an interactive opportunity for people to learn how CIRM is investing
Proposition 71 funds to improve human health and about advances in stem cell science from some of the
most distinguished researchers in the field.”

CIRM manages the public money that was allotted for stem cell research through the passage of Prop. 71. Part of their mandate is to inform the public of the state of the research. They have a vested interest in doing a good job at the public outreach: future funding depends on it.

I went with great hopes for a well-attended, message driven, engaging experience.

They did have the numbers. It’s estimated by the CIRM chief communications officer, Don Gibbons, that 275 people came to the event, which is 75 more than had RSVP’d. So, in terms of feet in the meeting room, the people came.

Needless to say, there were event posters plastered all over SF Muni’s buses and trains for a month prior. But, the fact that so many people had RSVP’d makes me wonder how successful the print ad campaign actually was. I don’t know how many people would write down the email address in order to reply once in front of a computer. Yes, in San Francisco, many people could have used their mobile devices to respond on route, but I still wonder. I know I never RSVP’d. I just showed up.

An RSVP is most likely to come from someone who receives an email communication, an invitation, or… a press release. And, those people are going to be somehow linked to the organization through some kind of list. So, how many of the attendees were citizens of this California locality with no link to CIRM? Probably not as many as they hoped to attract.

But, what about people who might have been interested, but unable to make it to the Palace Hotel in downtown San Francisco? What about Californians in Redding, Stockton, Humboldt, Fresno? That’s a long drive to make for a lecture on stem cells. This is where CIRM fails in its mandate to inform the public of its activities, and where it fails at basic Web 2.0.

With today’s internet capabilities, there is no excuse for relying on outreach techniques of yesterday. They have a mandate to reach the public. I don’t think 275 attendees cuts the mustard. So, where could they have improved?

1.Interact with the audience

If it’s supposed to be interactive, make it interactive.

Sure, the q and a after the lectures was interactive for the people in attendance, but they could do so much better. There are web companies that make it easy to set up a simple camera and stream events live to people around the world. Not only does the video reach a wider audience, the platforms make interactive chat between people hosting and viewing an event possible. Both the informational lectures and the question and answer session could have been made richer by the parallel discussion. I had the only video camera at the town hall, and I wasn’t streaming.

2. Engage the audience

Who did CIRM have presenting to the audience? Scientists. And, while scientists are smart and everything, they don’t always do a good job of conveying information to a lay audience. The lectures last night were academic, textbook, and DRY. If it weren’t for the fact that I think 2/3 of the people in the room had a science background, the lectures would have been over the heads of the average person. Add to the lecture content the fact that the visual presentations were abysmal. The slides were consistently over-stuffed with text or overly-complicated graphics. However, there were two bright spots. Tamara Alliston, who lectured on cartilage, did an excellent job of using cartilage as the main character in her story, and Bruce Conklin, who lectured on heart muscle, effectively used humor to his benefit (not to mention that he also had cool videos). Both of these techniques are extremely effective in getting an audience to engage with a topic.

3. Don’t forget the audience

It seemed as though, as well-intentioned as the speakers were, the purpose of the event was muddled. They forgot the concerns of the audience.

The entire series of three lectures needed to be message driven rather than driven by scientific jargon and research techniques. For future events, I suggest enlisting a public relations expert to train the speakers and help craft a series of engaging lectures with hooks to draw the audience in, stories to keep them engaged, and simple bottom-lines. What is the take home message? Drive it home.

4. Get the audience to spread the word

I’m spreading the word because that was my goal in attending. I wanted to see how this town hall was produced, and then talk about it. CIRM needs to get their audience to advertise for them, to pass their messages along for them. Where are those opportunities? Their website is devoid of ways to interact, communicate, and share. I did hear last night that part of the reason the website is suffering is that it is managed by the state, and has to deal with a lot of internal beaurocracy. Fair enough, but it is easy to become involved in non-state-managed web communities like Twitter, Facebook, Delicious, Stumble Upon, or even Flickr. What about Seesmic? I can imagine some interesting discussions taking place there. To CIRM’s credit, they do have both a YouTube site and a Flickr account.

5. Give the audience what they want

Some of the most effective campaigns to get the public interested in science are being run by NASA and the California Academy of Sciences. They are taking advantage of all the data available to them, and creating fascinating new ways to interact with their respective audiences in just the way the audience wants. NASA’s recent Twitter accounts have had amazing success, especially @MarsPhoenix. Then there is NASA.tv where I watched the recent shuttle docking with the International Space Station. Here in San Francisco, the Cal Academy recently began a Thursday night, adults-only event with top djs and alcohol. So far, it has been a raging success.

These examples aren’t necessarily exactly what CIRM should do, but they should learn the lesson of giving the audience what they want.

——————————————————–

I’ve been a bit harsh on CIRM for its inaugural public outreach event, but I think it is deserved. Science media is lacking, and every organization that is trying to share scientific information with the public needs to do their absolute best to step it up. Science needs to use PR and web 2.0 techniques just like everyone else.

I will admit that the whole town hall left me feeling as if CIRM was only just going through the motions of fulfilling its mandate for public outreach rather than truly making an effort to reach out and educate the people of California and beyond. I hope they do better next time.

How Science Got Its Groove Back

Today’s declaration by President Obama makes me very happy. Not only did he reverse the Bush administration’s limits on federal funding for stem cell research, but he made the statement that science is valuable.

“This [Stem Cell] Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda  –  and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”By doing this, we will ensure America’s continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.”That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals — to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.”

Today marks a very public and official change for the relationship between science and politics in the United States government. This makes me very, very happy.

A Brief History of Stem Cells

A recent scientific report marks a landmark in stem cell research. Scientists writing in the journal Development described their successful creation of induced pluripotent stem cells from skin cells. The mouse-derived skin cells Epi-stem cells (as in epidermal) have the ability to continually divide, but are specialized to create only skin.

This in itself is not new, but the researchers were able to complete their experiments without the use of viruses. Until now, viral vectors have been the only method  capable of inserting the necessary pluripotency inducing genes into animal cells. Because the viruses are made up of foreign DNA, their use adds a level of uncertainty to the potential therapeutic use of induced stem cells.

Nobody wants to see potentially deadly effects occur as the result of the foreign DNA — being foreign it is uncertain what kind of things could happen. So, getting rid of the viruses is essential if we are going to see induced stem cells move beyond the realm of the theoretical and into application.

This is a big step. Next we will have to see the methodology repeated in primates and then in humans. And, from there we will have to wait and see if the virus-free induced human stem cells of the future are really capable of becoming any type of tissue. There is a lot of work still to be done, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see the required evidence appearing in the news within the next year.

It was just 2006 when Japanese researchers used viruses to induce the first pluripotent stem cells from mouse cells. It took another year for them to reduce the errors present in the methodology, and get induced stem cells that could produce viable chimeras.

In November of 2007,  the first human induced pluripotent stem cells were created. The teams working on the problem felt that the use of viruses was still too dangerous as the viral DNA often led to the development of tumors.

Late in 2008, the news broke that induced pluripotent stem cells had been created with an adenovirus instead of a retrovirus, and later with the use of a plasmid. Neither of these new vectors are known to integrate foreign DNA into the target genome.

In December of 2008, skin cells from primates were induced to become pluripotent stem cells capable of becoming a number of different cell types. And, just two weeks ago researchers reported inducing human skin cells into pluripotent stem cells.

The most recent study uses a piece of DNA called a transposon to insert the critical DNA for creating pluripotent stem cells into target regions of the genome. This is an exciting development since the transposon used can be species specific, and take us far away from the use of foreign viral bits.

I’m excited to see where the future of this research will take us.

Stem Cell Therapy Needs Global Regulation

From my article on Skepticblog.org:

“Although the Russians claim to be using “neural stem cells”, they are not. They essentially take whole fetal brain, put in a Cuisinart, and inject it uncharacterized as a graft slurry,” wrote Dr. Snyder on The-Scientist.com.

Dr. Snyder and his colleagues have a paper in revision at the New England Journal of Medicine in which they analyzed the cells used in a similar case from the same group, and concluded that they were not likely to be neural stem cells.

A Response to Cali’s Weekend Twitter Circus

So, this past weekend Cali Lewis twittered the following statement:

“It’s so sad that smart people don’t pay attention to the science that proves global warming is a hoax.”

It created a thunderstorm of responses (I’ll admit to my own raised eyebrows.) to which she ended up replying in a blog post. Her post is quite a bit more carefully worded than the initial tweet, and addresses the initial feelings that led her to (unintentionally?) spark an online debate.

“Last night Neal and I took a break from a movie to grab a snack. The radio was on (NPR – like always), and I heard another yet political pundit talking about how we’ve caused global warming and what we need to do about it.”

Fair enough, the science of climate change has been politicized. I’m weary of the zealots on either side of the socio-political debate on this issue. However, in the next sentence Cali goes on to explain her position a bit further, and this is where I begin to diverge from her opinion.

“This person’s emphatic belief in man-made global warming was so over-the-top different from what climate scientists are saying that I tweeted my frustration.”

I don’t know what the person on the radio was saying, not having heard it myself, but I’ll guess that they were simply parroting the IPCC report conclusions that current climate trends are due in large part to human activities in order to give scientific credence to whatever environmental plan they happened to be espousing. Again, an annoying use of the science because it doesn’t take into account the complexity that scientists are dealing with, but not altogether wrong. I don’t know that it is “over-the-top different” from the majority consensus.

Cali goes on to say:

 “We’ve all heard about the 600 scientists who signed on to the UN’s global warming report. The media doesn’t readily share information about the thousands of scientist who disagree:”

This is manufactured controversy. There are always going to be individuals with varying opinions. I spend my time paying attention to as much of the science media as I can, and the reality is that the reporting on climate change is dominated by the few scientists who disagree with each other. The rest of the science world is doing what they do best… their jobs. And, the science supports the consensus.

The links Cali provides seem at the outset to provide evidence to her statement that there there is a big cover-up going on. However, a little digging reveals that the sources of the information aren’t necessarily trustworthy. The petition is served by an institution called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The initial run of the petition was discredited as misleading (see the preceding link) for various reasons. The senate link is a minority report provided by Senator Inhofe’s press blog. Inhofe is known for making misleading statements about climate science. And, the interview dishes up a fair bit of misinformation, which I’m not going to focus on here.

My final disagreement with Cali’s opinion is where she recommends Dr. Roy Spencer as a single source for information on climate. She says:

“His research corresponds with the work of other climatologists.”

Yes, he has done some very good work, but he’s not the only person doing climate research. Interestingly, according to RealClimate.org:

“… what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.”

I just want to remind people that science is never based on the work or the opinions of one person. Science is not a petition. It is based on data-based consensus over time. So, while it might be useful to read Roy’s book as Cali suggests, it is also good to look for other books and articles by many other authors before forming an opinion.

Unfortunately, the issue has been so politicized that people do have opinions whether or not they know anything about climate science because of the emotions involved. I have a basic understanding of the science involved, but I leave the details to the experts, those working on the science. I try to temper my own opinion with the understanding that I don’t know everything on this topic.

In this, I agree with Cali:

“Here’s the problem and the reason I’m willing to be a little controversial and publicly talk about my skepticism: The politicians sound like apocalyptic preachers who doom us to all kinds of disaster if we don’t believe their message.”

The politics have gone overboard. It doesn’t matter which news stations you listen to, because of ratings and poll results, pundits and politicians have forgotten about moderation.

“Climate scientists sound like rational adults seeking the truth. Science is all about skepticism. I’m skeptic, and science says I have a real reason to be one.”

It is good to be skeptical, but not to the detriment of reason. Sometimes skeptics forget to poke holes in their own arguments. I don’t think science is about skepticism. It is about critical thinking, which is necessary for proper support of skepticism. Yes, be a skeptic, but look at as many sides of an issue as you can, and remember that there are probably others that you have not considered. An opinion is just that, an opinion, not a statement of fact. We all have them, but that doesn’t make us experts.

The issue of “global warming” is a complicated one, which is why it is so easy for people to muddy the waters of public opinion. I find it sad that people have become so polarized over wording and not the crucial issue of humanity. Will humanity survive a dramatic period of climate change? Probably, but at what cost? And, given what benefits?

I agree with Cali that blue skies and clear water are of utmost importance. Let’s try to get past the politics and name-calling. They will never get us anywhere.

And, I suggest that anyone who called Cali names apologize.

The Story of the Experiment

This is an excellent TED talk about the human story of science and experimentation. I highly recommend taking half an hour to enjoy and learn from scientist story-teller, Kary Mullis.

The Debate Continues To Rage

I received a press release today from an organization called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank located in Washington DC and committed to “free enterprise and limited government.”

And, while free enterprise and limited government are not inherently bad, years of bad politics and close-minded agendas immediately put a bad taste in my mouth when I read the phrase.

Still, I was interested in what they had to say this time around.

… a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute calls into question whether, ethics aside, stem cell research is even a sensible expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

 Government stem cell research programs, such as California’s Proposition 71, are bureaucratic, wasteful, and mired in political controversy… And, because stem cell research is inherently speculative and politically controversial, the public would be best served if governments left it to the private sector.

 “This is not a question of whether the research should be conducted, but whether public funding for it is justified,” said Fry-Revere. “It is impossible to know how successful this research will be or whether any individual projects will produce genuine medical treatments, and it is not the place of government to gamble with taxpayers’ money.”

I can see the argument here; stop government funding of the research because private groups will do the work anyway, and public funding comes with beaurocracy that almost negates the benefits of the research itself. It is true. Publically funded labs have to comply with incredibly strict regulations that make doing the research nearly impossible… not to mention the restrictions on cell lines.

However, this is not what I see as their main point. They primarily argue that the nature of the research is too speculative. Why should the government fund research that might not amount to anything? Sure, fair enough. Why should it?

But, then again, why shouldn’t the government be a part of promoting science and the search for knowledge? The government can help the economy by putting taxpayer money back into industries like scientific research. Not only will that money increase the number of jobs in that sector (something that is good in this time of a 6.1% unemployment rate), but the result could also be something that will help mankind.

Whether or not cures actually come from basic research is not the point of supporting science with taxpayer money. Besides, didn’t the California taxpayers decide to set a certain amount of money aside for stem cell research? It’s not as though the decision was made by someone other than “the people” in this case.

I am amazed to think that supporting science is “gambl[ing] with taxpayers’ money.” The arguments made in the press release are emotional at best, and not supported by fact in the least. If supporting things can be considered gambling one might as well say that public funding of the educational system is a gamble because we have no idea how any of the kids are going to turn out. They might all end up drug addicts and thieves. I’d like to counter that financial support of science and basic reasearch is rather an investment in the future.

Finally, if they really have an issue with the speculative nature of stem cell research, why bring up this question only for stem cells. Why not bring into question funding of science in general? Take the argument to its logical end. It seems that this focused approach belies an underlying agenda.What that agenda is I can only guess at, but I feel that their argument against stem cell funding in this case was disingenuous at best.