If you are going to be on-line anywhere from 5:30pm - 8pm Pacific time, check out the webcast of the longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century tonight. It is only visible in parts of China and the South Pacific, but the Griffith Park Observatory here in Los Angeles is broadcasting the view via webcast from Shanghai. The "totality" stage of the eclipse will happen around 6:30pm Pacific, lasting from 6:37pm - 6:43pm.
Here is the link.
This is downright ridiculous.
After eight years of an administration that believed an embryo was a fully-grown human being, and that god told us to go to war and kill innocent civilians, sanity finally returned to the White House. But apparently insanity has a way of coming back in the form of irrational people fighting the same battles over and over again.
The LA Times reported last week that conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research are going to battle against Obama's executive order by spreading the word about their views, and educating more people about the less controversial research methods that are available.
And it’s already happening. Georgia’s senate passed a bill last Thursday that would prohibit the creation of embryonic stem cell lines.
The legislation “defines an embryo as a person, thus prohibiting its use in scientific research and making it illegal for researchers to create new ones. Violators could lose their medical license and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense. The legislation seeks to control the use of embryonic stem cells and moves the debate into the antiabortion arena.”
Other conservatives want to push the idea for alternative methods that are less controversial – and that means, the creation of pluripotent stem cells from adult tissue without the use of embryos. Previous studies have shown this to be possible, but the technique is too dangerous to use in human beings since it involves modifying cells with the help of viruses, which may endanger a person’s life. Recent studies have reported that there may be a way to modify adult stem cells without the use of viruses, but clearly, this research is in its infancy, and will need decades to find its way into therapeutics, if at all.
What makes this outcry against stem cell research even more ridiculous is that all or most of these same people who oppose stem cell research to save actual human lives are OK with legislation for reproductive purposes. So, they would sooner destroy an embryo to create a new life than to save an existing one.
As bioethics expert, Paul Wolpe, rightfully points out, when you define an embryo as a human being neither should be allowed. "It is a problematic strategy because when you define an embryo as a person, what they say is: Therefore you cannot destroy them. My response is: Therefore you cannot freeze them. How can you freeze a person and keep them suspended in animation?"
It’s pretty obvious that these people are holding on to this argument simply for political purposes – or close-minded idiocy, which is worse.
I found particularly interesting this article by an elderly Ohio woman who came around to stem cell research owing, in part, to what science could do in terms of her cancer therapies, and what it could not – and as yet, cannot – do for her mother’s struggles with Parkinson’s. Perhaps, if we hadn't wasted the last eight years playing political games with people's lives....
Like this woman in Canton, a majority of Americans certainly believe in the potential benefits of stem cell research.
What will it take these right wing nut jobs to let go of that cryopreserved embryo, which will never see the light of day anyway, and save an actual human life?
Having been in scientific research for almost a decade, it always appalls me to hear science reporters make sweeping generalizations and oversimplifications on television. While this is by no means confined to broadcast news, the most erroneous bits of science information do come from soundbites of so-called experts called upon to enlighten lay audiences about complex scientific topics, usually on the pretext of an equally poorly-reported study in a newspaper. Unfortunately most scientists aren’t listening to that news report and most laymen aren’t schooled to realize that it ranges from anywhere between mildly misleading to dangerously inaccurate. This article in today’s Washington Post, which distinguishes between evidence and opinion in scientific reporting, is illuminating.
The biggest problem in science reporting, as I see it, is that scientific studies rarely have enough evidence to make categorical conclusions. Journalism, on the other hand, is all about conclusions; journalists are trained to jump to conclusions long before all the relevant facts are available – think of all the speculation and analysis and hearsay and exit polls that gets widely reported in mainstream media as if it were indistinguishable from fact. "You are making news here," Chris Matthews often cries after doggedly challenging a political strategist to make a prediction about an election result that is months away.
While a political pundit’s word is as good as news in politics, no research will be published in the journal Nature because a Nobel prize-winning scientist “thinks” something might be true (notwithstanding the in-high-places-prejudice that exists in academic research).
As David Brown is attributed as saying in the Post piece, science reporters have to take excessive care not to make foregone conclusions. They should be able to give the reader sufficient facts and background on all the evidence that is available on a given subject, and follow up, as research progresses. A reporter should spend less time telling a reader what to conclude from a study and more time detailing the evidence available so that the latter may be allowed to make his own conclusions.
A good example of the really shoddy reporting that happens in science is a recent reportage of a study that found links between areas with higher rainfall and the prevalence of autism. All the study really concludes is that potential environmental factors linked to precipitation levels might, when combined with genetic and behavioral influences, cause an increased incidence of autism. As Ewen Callaway notes in the New Scientist, headlines in newspapers ranged from Heavy rainfall could be linked to autism to -- appallingly -- Autism: Blame it on the rain.
This is not to say that this problem with opinions overriding evidence is not existent in other areas. For better or for worse, it is more clearly visible in science reporting, I think, because science so steadfastly relies on hard data and factual evidence. Every result you ever report has to be tested, refuted, challenged, reproduced and proved beyond doubt to be true. “That could just be an artifact,” my professor would say in graduate school, after my fifth consistent reproduction of an experiment. Inspite of this ruthless insistence on accuracy (one that among many other things prompted me to quit science), nothing you read in a peer-reviewed science journal can be taken as the gospel truth (boy, do gospels have it easier).
For every successful experiment in science, there are usually a dozen failed attempts, about two-dozen repititions, and a hundred contradictory results published elsewhere. Then there are a whole slew of exceptions, conditions, factors, and biases that might have influenced the results.
So, while it might be sensational and eye-catching to report that rain causes autism, it is far from the truth. “Environmental factors related to precipitation might contribute to autism,” is less exciting but closer to the truth, and might prevent a potential mass exodus from Seattle.
Agnes Mary Clerke. Irish immigrant, astronomer, pioneering woman scientist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
No presidential candidate offered to show up for the Science Debate at Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute in April, but both candidates made it a point to visit evangelical pastor Rick Warren to answer questions on faith and moral values. It’s pretty clear where the candidates’ priorities are, and a little disheartening, considering stem-cell research promises to cure life-threatening diseases, and a rapidly warming world threatens life itself.
While the candidates may not be focusing on science, scientists certainly are keeping a close watch on them. McCain and Obama stare out of the cover in the latest issue of Nature, a prelude to a series of articles on the two rivals’ positions on everything from research to wireless Internet.
And boy, is there reason for it. The current administration has made a mockery of science by tailoring the EPA’s reports on global warming and manipulating endangered species lists to achieve its own political ends; NIH funding has seen a sharp decline from its glory years. It falls to the next American president to decide if stem cell research will be given the green light it needs, and whether mandatory greenhouse gas regulations will be instilled.
It is not hard to guess which of the two contenders in this race is more sympathetic to science. Well, it isn’t hard in any race, but this season, the difference couldn’t be starker. And not so much for McCain’s lack of support for science (after all, he’s proposed increasing NIH funding and voted to remove restrictions on stem cell research) as for Obama’s detailed positions on various issues dealing with scientific advancement in this country.
While Obama’s science advisory committee is a who’s who of academicians and scientific experts, McCain’s is a list of the usual suspects: political strategists, congressional staff, and corporate leaders. Obama intends to appoint a chief technology officer to oversee cross interactions, information sharing and improvement of technology among the various governmental departments. In addition he has proposed to counter the digital divide in America by expanding broadband access. One has only to look at his Web site to determine that the Illinois senator (and his advisers) know a thing or two about technology: the clean lines, abundant features, the seamless harmony, and the ease of use reflect a tech-savvy designer. As Noam Cohen deduced in an analysis – far too frivolous by New York Times’ standards – Obama would be a mac in the world of computers.
Add to that the scrupulous way in which the supposed novice to national politics has run his campaign – a true, Internet-style, power-distributive, bottom-up democratic approach. Josh Green of The Atlantic calls him this year’s hottest Silicon Valley start-up. The campaign’s use of the Internet to rally support certainly has to go in the books as one of the top reasons for Obama’s success, right alongside inspiring speeches, enviable charisma and good judgment.
Obama has spoken about conducting “online fireside chats” as president, has proposed a Google-like database for all federal money spent, and suggested putting non-emergency legislation online for five days for people to vote on. Most notably, in a Q&A with Nature (which McCain refused to participate in), Obama spoke of the necessity to invest in basic research, which can reap great medical rewards in the long run, despite the fact that specific projects are often unpredictable. Scientists often have trouble getting their heads around this unfortunate fact of science, with the NIH itself insisting on applicative proof and potential benefits when approving funding for research projects.
In addition, Obama has categorically stated that he will lift the ban on stem-cell research. That he has more than a cursory grasp of the subject is evident from the fact that he has distinguished between embryonic and adult stem cells and reinforced the versatility of the former. Obama’s endorsement of the America Competes Act, intended to increase research budgets and his proposal to use science and technology to address issues such as health care and climate change are reassuring to any proponent of science.
For a person who rarely refrains from invoking the name of god at the stump, he is quite firm in his rejection of teaching creationism in schools. “I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny,” he said to Nature. Joe Biden, also well known for his religious beliefs, but true to form, has been slightly more blunt on the subject of intelligent design. “I refuse to believe that the majority of people believe this malarkey,” he has said more than once. Biden has not so subtly questioned Palin’s position on stem-cell research despite the affliction of her youngest child with Down syndrome.
It is positions such as this, in addition to her refusal to believe that global warming is man made, that make Palin's presence on the Republican ticket more terrifying than it already is. McCain may not check email or the Google, but at least he gave a perfunctory nod to the Darwinian theory before launching into an ode to the hand of god in the Grand Canyon.
To his credit, and possibly to his political detriment, McCain has been more vociferous than most republicans on issues of energy policy, including removing tariffs for biofuels, and endorsing the cap-and-trade approach for emissions regulation. With regard to medical research, he has twice voted to remove restrictions on stem-cell research and proposed increased NIH funding.
However, the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket erases any confidence the scientific community had placed in the senator from Arizona. If there were danger that McCain might toss science into the proverbial frying pan, then Sarah Palin would not hesitate to drop it directly into the fire.
Why? Because when you think you've gotten rid of him, he keeps coming back. I thought would never have to read him again because of Times Select, the greatest invention of the 21st century. But his science blog on the Times is always worth reading.
Four days after proclaiming that global warming will be good for the Arctic because it will bring more economic opportunities to the region, he writes on what is clearly a vitally important story for world science, the astronaut who got charged with attempted murder! Now that's breaking scientific news!!!
Seriously, this is the New York Times. The United States' most important paper. And they have this guy as their science blogger? Are you freaking kidding me? What a joke. What a disaster. What a disservice to readers.
