Science Doesn’t Start Wars

Nina Fedoroff is my new favorite scientist ever. This interview makes me happy.

Evolving Landscapes

Two articles today got me thinking today (because you know I wouldn’t have been thinking otherwise).

The first, from SF Gate, described the recent decision allowing the University of California to reject high school credits for courses using textbooks that don’t meet the accepted admissions standards. Rejection of course credits can ultimately block the admission of students to the University.

It’s too bad that some students can be kept from attending a school because of decisions that their teachers and school boards make. However, admissions standards are used for a reason, namely to be sure that students are prepared for the next level of their education. And, if a student has been taught inadequately it will at best be difficult for them to do well within the university environment. Allowing such students entry to a university would be a disservice not only to those students, but to the university environment as a whole.

Unfortunately, the case in question is being turned into a religious freedom issue rather than the simple matter of standards that it really is. The textbooks being rejected leave out evolution in favor of Creationism or focus on “supernatural” causes/events. The plaintiffs in the case argue that these texts aren’t incorrect, they just present an alternative view of science and/or history.

Ok, so if that’s the case, I should be able to start a school that teaches only from texts promoting the history and science of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Unicorns. Or, maybe I teach my home-schooled kids from texts that contain the history of the human race as being cultivated by aliens. Either way, I should expect that my students will gain entry to the UC system as long as they have good grades (and test scores, and of course, the appropriate extra-curricular activities).

It seems like the plaintiffs have the following view on getting into a STATE FUNDED university: it doesn’t matter what you learn, as long as you learn something.

I’ll stop with that soapbox now before I become even more snarky.

The second article that caught my eye was an editorial in the New York Times promoting the teaching of evolution in schools. The author lays out several great reasons why teaching and learning about evolution is important. In the process, she uses several examples of evolution in action to make her points. Unfortunately, I have to be the nit-picky scientists and point out that many of those examples are not necessarily evolution, but rather adaptations. Still, the ideas in the essay are solid. Many thanks to both the author and the New York Times for defending the teaching of evolution in schools by publishing the piece.

Finally, this all brought me to consider an interview with the US President on NBC I saw the other night. During the interview, Bob Costas did a pretty good job of asking hard-hitting questions, and Mr. Bush talked fairly openly about his visit to China. Three answers stood out to me, and I thought them especially telling of the President’s mind-set as he ends his tenure:

“…I think you should look at the relationship as one of constructive engagement, where you can find common areas like North Korea and Iran. But also be in a position where they can respect you enough to listen to your views on religious freedom and political liberty.”

Why just religious freedom? Why not personal freedom?

“…if you are a religious person you understand that once religion takes hold in a society it can’t be stopped.”

Uhhh… what? Excuse me, did he just say what I think he did? Sounds a little like zealotry to me.

“I went to church here. And I’m sure the cynics say ‘Well, you know, it was just a state sponsored church.’ On the other hand, and that’s true, it gave me a chance to say to the Chinese people, religion won’t hurt you, you ought to welcome religious people. And it gave me a chance to say to the Chinese government, ‘Why don’t you register the underground churches and give them a chance to flourish?’ And he listened politely. I can’t read his mind, but I do know that every time I met with him, I pressed the point.”

Right. So, he disrespected the beliefs of the Chinese President and the ruling party in order to promote his own religious views while acting as the President and official representative of the United States, which officially doesn’t promote religion what with the separation of church and state and all that silly stuff. And, he did it over and over again.

Thank you, Mr. President, for your efforts.

That Which Divides

This morning I am struck by an article in the New York Times about testing of athletes in the Olympics, and this time it’s not drug testing. It’ s testing for sex.

According to the article sex testing has been a part of the Olympics since the days of Soviet-era steroid doping. Steroids are a class of hormones, which function by affecting changes in the activity of target cells, and are responsible for modulating physiological processes ranging from sexual differentiation to kidney function to inflammation. The type of steroid with which most people are familiar in the sporting arena is the anabolic steroid, or ‘roid.

Anabolic steroids are synthetically produced compounds that mimic the “male” sex steroids, or androgens. They are commonly used to increase muscle mass, and have secondary effects often resulting in masculinization. Consequently, they have become popular among both male and female athletes in the quest to increase performance level in a variety of sports. In the 50’s-60’s, the Soviets used steroids institutionally as a part of the training regimes for state athletes. It became common to question the sex of the very masculine appearing female athletes, and testing was instated for verification.

Now, steroids are still used, but not in such an overt manner. Many female athletes appear quite masculine, but is it because they take drugs to get a competitive edge?

I’m forced to consider our classification of the human sexes as a binary system. Historically, we have averted our eyes to anything that does not fit the mold, but evidence suggests that human sexual characteristics reflect more of a continuum rather than a neat categorical division. According to the NYT article, the results of some sex tests have surprised even the athlete being tested. Can you imagine thinking that you are female, being raised as a female, only to have a test at an international sporting event tell you otherwise — that you have a Y chromosome?

From the article:

“It’s very difficult to define what is a man and what is a woman at this point,” said Christine McGinn, a plastic surgeon who specializes in transgender medicine.

There are men with no Y chromosomes or too many, women with Y chromosomes, men and women with the appropriate chromosomes who don’t feel like they are the right sex. A study came out recently that underlines the complexity of sexuality and our limited understanding of what makes a person’s sex, which loosely links a particular gene variant to transsexual behavior. It is becoming more and more obvious that chromosomal sex, while an important part, is not the only factor involved in sex determination. We also need to consider hormonal environment within the womb, genes apart from the X and Y chromosomes, and epi-genetic factors.

The situation is obviously not very cut-and-dried, and the testing seems an extreme invasion of privacy. Maybe, instead of testing athletes to see whether they fit neatly into a competitive category, our system should be changed to reflect the variety of forms that make us human.

Time to Ask Questions!

SEFORA (Scientists and Engineers For America) is working their butts off to get politicians to tell voters where they stand on science. They’ve compiled 7 questions for every political candidate to answer. And, they’re starting to get results. A few politicians have sent in their answers.

But, it’s not nearly enough.

So, they are asking people to start writing letters. That means you. Yes, you. In fact, today they have issued an action alert.

If you are interested in getting politicians to state their scientific positions, tell them. You can find out who your candidates are, and how to contact them through the SEFORA website and the SHARP network. Let’s fill their mailboxes with this letter writing drive!

It’s really as easy as clicking a button. I tried it myself for my own district. Find your candidate in the SHARP network, and click on the option to send them an email. You will automatically be taken to a form where you fill in your name and address. The letter is already written for you. You can choose to be notified of the candidate’s response or not. Fill out the spam captcha, and click send.

It really couldn’t be easier.

So, doooo it. For science.

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 »

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?