International Day of Women & Girls in Science 2019

Kirsten (Kiki) Sanford obtained a PhD in 2007 for studies in avian neurophysiology.

We’ve come a long way, baby… but, we still have a long way to go.

It’s International Day of women and girls in science. One might ask why, now that women are starting to outnumber men in scientific disciplines at the collegiate level, such a day is still important. But, the reality is that historically and globally women have faced (and continue to face) discrimination that 1) has directly impacted their ability to live fulfilling lives with careers of their choosing, and 2) muted the potential for economic development in many countries. Is it really that surprising that removing half of the possible brain-trust of a country from the equation has negative consequences on economic outcomes?

Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to publicize the best strategies for interesting girls in the sciences and the specific influences of women on the scientific endeavor in the hope that it will eventually lead to equality.  

I never faced out-right discrimination growing up. There was never a question that I could do whatever I chose. I watched my mother go to women’s groups, get involved in politics, and vocally promote feminism; not understanding until much later that she was part of a movement that would make my life easier. Not understanding that movement had begun long before my mother was born. It was also lost on me that the work of reminding the world that women are every bit as capable at contributing to progress as men would fall next on my shoulders.

My life of relative privilege is directly attributable to the efforts of women like my mother. But, I now realize that there is no opportunity for rest, as all of their hard-earned gains can be so easily lost. I see it everyday in the comments on social media platforms and websites, and in the news.

Also, there is still room for improvement.

Where can we improve?

Although women now enter scientific studies at greater numbers than men, we still get fewer management-level jobs and at lower salaries. In the hallowed halls of academia, women also experience harassment and more subtle forms of discrimination through lack of social inclusion that limit their ability to thrive.

But, the number of women in science is on the rise, and the ecosystem will continue to improve as the number of female scientists increases. Increasing diversity in the scientific workplace will push inclusion forward. More women having a say in how things are done will inevitably change procedures. And, seeing more female scientists will give young girls something to strive for. But, how we get there is important and in no way certain.

A study out this past week found that young girls respond more positively to “doing science” than “being a scientist”.  The opposite was true for boys. Unsurprisingly, a survey in the UK found that girls’ attitudes about different subjects directly correlated to their performance in those subjects. I think this hints at an underlying difference between the genders that should be attended to in how we teach and excite kids about future careers in science. It is also indicative of educators and media failing to present female scientist role models that allow young girls to even begin to imagine themselves in that role.

When I was young, I never once thought about being a scientist when I grew up. I always liked science, and was good at it. But, scientist was never a career that seemed like an option. It was only after I started graduate school that I figured out that a scientist is what I had become.

Did you grow up wanting to be a scientist? Do you have a daughter or son who wants to? Let me know!

Sex, Science, and Politics

Thanks to a conversation with an individual on Twitter, I now understand that there is a segment of the US population that is in denial about the reality of developmental biology, specifically that people can be born as something other than strictly male or female. I doubt that those in denial about gender identity in the modern age will come to read this post. But, for others who might not understand what the hubbub is about, please, read on.

Gender is not sexual preference. Gender is not the same thing as sex.

Gender is usually something personal. You put on your make-up, or shave your face in the privacy of your home without anyone else’s input. Sex is also personal. It’s not often that the clitoris and penis are discussed openly.

Yet, sex and gender are also a huge aspect of social life, and thus politics. Once upon a time in America, the owning of land was allowed (or dis-allowed) on the basis of one’s sex. If you were born with genitalia that looked male, lucky you. You could be a landowner. This, too, led to determinations of who was allowed to vote. Men could. Women could not. Nevermind that sex and gender don’t always align perfectly.

Our Western society has operated in this sort of binary gender construct for much of its history. But, thanks to science and social media, the last several decades have been filled with voices asking us all to consider the reality that gender is not just binary.

On the basis of chromosomes (XX for women and XY for men), it seems cut and dried. But, sometimes there are chromosomal duplications or abnormalities leading to XXY, X, or mosaic karyotypes. Additionally, hormones play a huge role in development of the genitalia, and excess androgen or estrogen can lead to changes in the appearance of the genitals compared to what is considered normal. Sometimes genetic or epigenetic factors can lead to hormone insensitivity, which means that even though the karyotype and hormone levels are normal, the body doesn’t develop in parallel. It’s even been suggested that environmental toxins are having an increased effect on the abnormal development of sexual characteristics in some parts of the world.

Taken together, this means that the genitals that a doctor looks at to determine a baby’s gender at birth aren’t always representative of the individual’s internal state. And, sometimes because of hormonal factors that difference doesn’t really appear until puberty. For the majority of people, it is fairly straightforward. But, for the millions of people born transgender or intersex, growing up can be extremely confusing and difficult.

Recently, and probably in a bid to drum up their conservative-base, the Trump administration reported that it is considering a change to Title IX that would legally pin-down the definition of sex. According to the NY Times:

“Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth,” the department proposed in the memo, which was drafted and has been circulating since last spring. “The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

Clearly, considering hormonal influences on gender identity that go beyond what can be determined based on genetic screening, this definition is inadequate to say the least.

My conversation on Twitter let me know that there are many people who don’t care to understand that gender is more than what many of us learned about in sixth-grade sex education classes; who don’t care to understand what it feels like to be a minority; who don’t care to understand how our social policies leave some people out; who live in a state of denial.

And, I do hope that this media play does get people off their butts to vote. Let’s get our Democracy back.

Wisdom Versus Weakest

This week has been a doozy for news in America, and it’s only Tuesday. Trump has travelled the world, cow-towed to Putin, and managed to do unfathomable damage to our world standing… oh, yes, Germany now lists us as adversarial thanks to recent comments by Trump. AND, Jimmy Kimmel once again reinforced the inadequacy of the American educational system.

“I can’t name anything” – Pedestrian Questions – Jimmy Kimmel Live

Understanding that the bit is edited to be a shocking and humorous as possible, it is still hard to believe that people don’t know the difference between a continent and country – many responses were to point at Africa when asked to locate/name a country on the map. Even more disturbing is that when given the option to locate ANY country on the map, they don’t even start with the United States. Thankfully, we are relieved when a young boy-child seems to name all the countries in North and South America. The future is in good hands… can the rest of us just leave already?

But, the problem is I can’t even be shocked by the revelation of ignorance in this video clip. The news for the past couple of years has etched this reality into the nerve pathways of my brain. A good portion of Americans don’t know anything about the rest of the world, let alone where the rest of the world is located. They also don’t know much beyond their own experiences. The educational system has let a lot of people pass through its grasp without actually teaching them to see beyond what is right in front of their own faces.

Of course, the media is to blame as well. It perpetuates what people want to see, and it seems as though that vision is driven by the least curious among us. Once again we fall victim to the influence of the weakest link instead of being lofted by the wisdom of the crowd.

How we change this pattern is something the brightest minds are trying to figure out. For the time being we don’t have an answer that involves systemic change. For now, it is up to each of us to be responsible for a few things:

1. Ourselves – be curious, and feed that craving for information. Don’t take things at face-value. Do your own research.
2. Our families – inspire curiosity in the next generation.
3. Our communities – conversation doesn’t have to be argumentation. Learn to listen, and practice compassionate communication to build stronger, more resilient communities. Kindness really is essential in the present moment.
4. Our world – Vote. It really is the chance you have to voice your preferences in a way that will count. Local elections are essential to a functioning democracy. Forget about “trickle-down” economics, politics is all about trickling up. The grass has strong roots, and it will grow.

Not too hard, right?

Together we can turn the weakest links to wisdom.

Teach Your Children Well

A line from a song by Crosby, Stills, and Nash that speaks volumes to the report that is out this week on the worsening state of science education in America.

Why is it that we can argue about immigration, health care, the Tea Partiers and whether or not President Obama is a citizen, but stand by idly while the public school system deteriorates?

Is that where the voting public really wants this country to go? Is ‘Idiocracy‘ the future of our country?

I hate to even entertain such thoughts. Thankfully, I know many, many hard working people who care deeply about the education of our country’s children, and who will keep working to see that improvements to the educational system are made, with or without such a report.

Is the situation really as dire as the report makes it out to be? Maybe, maybe not.

In a USA Today article discussing responses to the report, there is a quote from one B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown:

“It’s easy to understand with the America COMPETES Act up for renewal why advocates would frame the situation this way. But it seems less helpful to frame things in a voice of crisis rather than a more reasoned response. Things aren’t as bad as this report paints them.”

Mr. Lowell issued a study in 2007 that concluded there were more than enough science and engineering graduates for the jobs that were available. So, ok, there are lots of graduates, but are they qualified, Mr. Lowell? That could be part of the problem. Just because people are graduating does not automatically make them able to perform a job.

Also, why are there fewer jobs than graduates? Why isn’t our country exploding with technological industry? Wouldn’t funding R&D through the America COMPETES Act lead to more jobs in that sector?

In this issue, as in all others, it does help to try to see as many sides of the issue as possible. But, the side I keep coming back to is the side with the children who are going to be our future. If the children are not educated well, there is not much hope for the future of this country. Shouldn’t protecting the future be something of a priority?

So, Mr. Lowell, I do think that framing this issue as a crisis is necessary. How else will it get the attention it deserves when there are so many loud mouths clogging up the media?

Since when has a reasoned political debate worked to fire up the public (and thus the politicians) in recent history?

Where is Whitney Houston when we need her most!?! (And, I mean pre-crackhead Whitney who sang with such conviction, I almost believed she believed what she was singing)

Michio Kaku on Why

In this segment, Dr. Kaku discusses with Dr. Kiki why communicating science is so vital to research, and why he spends so much of his time talking to the public.

Distributed by Tubemogul.

Michio Kaku on Politics

Excerpt from Dr. Kiki’s 2008 interview with Dr. Michio Kaku. Here he discusses selling science to politicians.

Michio Kaku on the Big Bang

Dr. Michio Kaku talks about the Big Bang and the Large Hadron Collider… and Elvis.

Should Newspapers Be Non-Profit?

This article in ZDNet suggests that it might not be such a bad idea. Says Mr. Diaz,

“What we’re not doing is sitting in on city council meetings on the lookout for changes to the zoning ordinances or hikes to property taxes. We’re not investigating environmental impacts from the new airport expansion or looking into motives of a developer who’s suddenly hanging around city hall regularly. That’s local stuff that should be covered at the local level and offered to local citizens. I imagine there are probably potential donors in cities and regions that would be willing to invest in local “journalism,” instead of “newspapers.””

Newspapers could subsist on donations rather than advertising. It’s an interesting idea, and there are some groups delving into the idea of donation based journalism.

However, the political biases of some newspapers are so obvious, it is hard to imagine them as non-profits. I can’t help but equate this idea to allowing churches to have non-profit status and promote political agendas.

Oh, wait. We already do that.

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 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.