Disturbing climate change headlines

Yesterday Tom Yulsman at CEJournal came across a story in Fog City Journal that led to a brief post, on which I commented there.

The topic is the fraught question of what's the best way for scientists to respond to global warming Know-Nothingism. My first comment was followed by a response from Tom, and I've responded with a longer note that seems worth sharing here. It turns out that there is a great deal that needs to be said.

What follows is my second response, more or less verbatim.

Tom, I've read the Revkin article and the Feinberg/Willer paper. [See the press release for quick summary.] Thanks for the references. However, I don't find them very persuasive. Apologies in advance for the length of this note.

The Feinberg/Willer paper is based on the social psychology circle of ideas known as "Just World Theory" (JWT). Curiously, the book of the "founder" of JWT, Melvin Lerner, is entitled The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Unfortunately, I don't have ready access to that volume, but I note that there is no question mark in the title, so I don't know whether Lerner himself actually regarded the underlying "just world" belief as a delusion.

Although the underlying belief that JWT deals with seems philosophically controversial (at best), JWT itself simply asserts that "many people" have this belief, and that certain consequences follow. One thing that concerns me is whether substantial evidence has been developed that quantifies how many people hold the underlying belief in the world's justness. At most it seems like just one dimension in a multidimensional space of belief systems.

It's clear enough that many people have religious beliefs that are incompatible with the idea that a "just" deity would allow the kind of climate developments that science predicts, and so such people deny the science. But that's a pretty broad feature of religion in general – it denies many kinds of science that clash with religion. So what's science supposed to do – give up and say, "Oops. we aren't really predicting what the evidence strongly indicates"?

The Feinberg/Willer paper argues that certain sorts of positive messages increase subjects' acceptance of the ideas (1) that the scientific evidence for global warming is good and (2) that science can find solutions to the problem. In other words, these messages are pro-science in a feel-good, non-threatening way. So of course it's not too surprising that the subjects who heard these messages exhibited greater acceptance of scientific conclusions. This is basic marketing theory.

One problem is that the part of the message that says science can find a "solution" to the problem is likely to be false. It's probable that there is no largely scientific solution. Mitigation of climate change is probably much more of an economic and political issue, because significant behavioral change and economic adjustment are likely to be necessary. Of course, this assertion is also open to debate.

I think that the best science has actually discovered a lot that suggests the threat of climate change is even more dire than some cautious observers assume. There is, for example, this: summary of ten rather disturbing types of climate threat reported in the past year.

You [Tom] wrote, "30 years of unrelenting fear appeals on climate change have gotten us, well, where? I would argue pretty much nowhere. If ever there was a prima facie case that fear appeals on climate change don’t work, this is it."

I'm afraid that by the very same sort of argument, 30 years of attempts to patiently and rationally educate the public on the science of climate change have also failed.

The real problem is that what's actually true is that different approaches work best with different types of people, depending on their undelying personality types and value systems. For example see Skeptics discount science by casting doubts on scientist expertise or the paper it discusses – Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.

One of the individuals that Revkin quotes in his article, Dan Kahan at Yale [and a founder of the Yale Cultural Cognition Project], states the problem quite well:

I think it [Feinberg/Willer] is good research, and maybe captures something that is going on in the real world debate. But it doesn’t capture what’s most important: the source of individual differences. People disagree about climate change; it is one of a cluster of science & policy issues that polarize citizens along cultural/political lines. "Just world" theory posits a general psychological mechanism that affects everyone. Necessarily, then, it can’t explain why one and the same set of informational influences (e.g., stories reporting "scientific consensus" on climate change) provoke different reactions in identifiable subcommunities. The theory that we need is one that identifies what the identifying characteristics of these communities are and how they are implicated in cognition of risk. No theory that focuses of [sic] generic or population-wide aspects of the psychology of risk perception (so-called "main effects") can do that.

In other words, a lot more needs to be done to steer public attitudes in the right direction. It is not a matter of simply finding the most comforting feel-good way to "frame" the issue, if that just entails obscuring the hard scientific facts. That is a vain hope.

I don't have a solution of the problem, but I think a solution should include a careful evidence-based appraisal of the kinds of messages that work best with different groups, combined with a plan for how to deliver the messages through different channels appropriate for different groups.

It's a lot like any other tough political campaign. Sometimes "negative" campaigning works very well, sometimes it doesn't.

I can see what's going on here. There are obviously efforts being made by a broad range of social scientists, communication experts, and journalists to shape an effective messaging strategy. For example: ClimateEngage.org. This is probably good. What is not clear is whether the people most involved will be able to identify a near-optimal strategy.

Just to name names, Matthew Nisbet [also here, here] (whom Revkin also quotes) is one with whom I find a lot to disagree – such as the whole "post-partisan" shtick. The elephant in the room is that most opponents of the necessity of acting on climate change – to say nothing of those who deny it even exists and/or is anthropogenic – have no intentions of operating in a reasonable and responsible "post-partisan" fashion.

There really is a war going on here. Climate scientists who don't face up to this reality are going to get the crap beat out of them. Just ask Phil Jones or Michael Mann [more here], for example. Much like Lt. Colonel George Custer at the Little Big Horn.

I write like Cory Doctorow

I write like
Cory Doctorow

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Interesting. I know who Cory is, and have even heard him speak, but haven't ever read something he's written.

So just for fun I analyzed another passage and got:

I write like
George Orwell

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

I assume this site refers mostly to top authors... I mean who'd like to be told "I write like Edward George Bulwer-Lytton"?

To test that hypothesis, I plugged in some of the worst writing I could think of (not mentioning any names) and out popped... David Foster Wallace. I put a Wikipedia link on that since I didn't recognize the name at first. Wikipedia refreshed my memory. I've never read anything by Mr. Wallace either, but given the person who was said to write like him, I don't think I'll be in any rush to check him out...

Update:

Another name I should check out just occurred to me – that of a person who happens to be a well-known and much celebrated contemporary science writer, but whose prose I don't much care for either and got... David Foster Wallace. Hmm. I see a pattern here and am even more convinced to give Mr. Wallace's works a pass...

Science journalism and the public understanding of science

I didn't have much to say about the results of last year's U. S. elections, except for this. After all, this is mainly a blog about science rather than politics.

However, politics is never that far off stage. There has been abundant evidence since the elections that, politically speaking, things are definitely looking up for science in the U. S. I don't think I need to take time now to enumerate the details.

Nevertheless, while science is in a much better place politically now, it is still in a very awkward place socially, as I went into somewhat here.

As further illustration of the theme of the social and economic problems that science is now faced with, let me offer just a few references, with special emphasis on problems besetting science journalism and the conflicts between bloggers and "real" science journalists:

Scientists & Science Journalism in the age of Blogging

A science blogger makes some observations, and provides an abundance of links, on the controversy that erupted last December on the news that CNN had axed its entire science team.

Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?

Science journalism is in decline; science blogging is growing fast. But can the one replace the other, asks Geoff Brumfiel.

Review: The Open Laboratory: The best science writing on blogs 2008

A very mainstream media publication, NewScientist, uses the occasion of (what was purported to be) a book review – on a collection of highly rated science blogging – to slam bloggers ("While newspapers may indeed have an abysmal track record when it comes to reporting on science, many blogs out there are far worse.") – rather than to review the book. (Talk about examples of "responsible" and "objective" journalism.)

On science blogging and mainstream science writing...

In response to the previous travesty, a journalist/blogger offers a responsible, even-handed view of science writing in the blogs vs. the mainstream media.

Adumbrating a theme we'll take up later, regarding the death of the newspaper industry, there's this:

A tired "solution" to the newspaper dilemma

Some reasons, but hardly the only ones, why the newspaper industry is failing.

And let's not forget that all this is really about a problem that's larger and more important than the demise of a bad business model or a technologically obsolescent industry:

American Adults Flunk Basic Science

A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive reveals that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.

There's no time to discuss those items in detail right now. Read them if you want some background. I'll come back to the problems of newspapers and science journalism in general, but first some reflections on the overall importance, which is rather ambiguous, of science in our society. The problem is larger than journalism – it encompasses our educational system too.

On the one hand, many scientific activities are generally well-regarded and well-respected – even admired. That list includes, just to give a few examples, space exploration, the science and technology underlying computers and other electronic technology, and many aspects of scientific medicine.

But on the other hand, there are many problems as well. There are significant amounts of skepticism regarding climate science and the risks of global warming. The science of evolution by natural selection is under constant attack for purely ideological reasons. Many people are distrustful of, or even hostile to, various parts of scientific medicine, and instead place their faith in unproven, or even untested, forms of "alternative" medicine.

In addition, economic problems are hastening the demise of traditional forms of journalism that in the past have provided the public with generally accurate and essential information about scientific matters that affect the public welfare. Science journalism that remains appears, at least to some observers, to be increasingly shallow and superficial.

And if all that weren't enough, there are serious questions about the adequacy of the quantity and quality of instruction in public elementary and secondary schools. Although public school teachers of science and mathematics generally continue to do their best under difficult circumstances, they often face an uphill struggle against cuts to educational budgets, the meddling of ideological interest groups that want to control or limit the teaching of subjects like evolution, and the difficulties of keeping up with the robust growth of scientific knowledge.

All this is occurring at a time when strength in public understanding of science is needed more than ever in order to cope with serious problems such as climate change, new and possible epidemic diseases, depletion of natural resources like water and energy sources in a world of rapid population growth, side-effects of pollution and environmental damage caused by increasing use of technology by this same growing population, the existential threats posed by proliferation of rapidly evolving "weapons of mass destruction", and the emergence of new kinds "weapons" aimed not at people but at global information and financial infrastructure.

There's a lot to be worried about these days. But at the same time, we are still in the early stages of development of new, powerful information and communication technologies – the Internet, wireless communication services, and cheap, portable devices to receive, digest, and store a flood of electronic information "content".

And on top of that, biotechnology may, at long last, be ripening to the point where developments of new ways to protect and enhance health and longevity are close at hand. Among the possibilities are stem cell therapies, new kinds of vaccines and antibiotics, "personalized" medicine, and effective treatments for devastating diseases like cancer, deadly endemic and pandemic infections, heart disease, and diabetes. But there are important public policy issues in this as well – especially how to make it widely available without further inflating the already hefty amount of gross domestic product allocated to health care.

All this is to say that "public understanding of science" is at least as important as ever. Yet two of the main institutions that should be responsible for building and maintaining this understanding are deeply troubled.

I don't have the answers, of course, but now let me return to a narrower issue – the collapse of the newspaper industry – that very well serves as a metaphor for the larger problem

Regarding the fate of newspapers, and probably other forms of communication printed on paper (i. e. journals), consider this essay of Clay Shirky (with thanks to Digby):

[O]rganizational forms perfected for industrial production have to be replaced with structures optimized for digital data. It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public — has stopped being a problem. ...

When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

Shirky is talking about technologically driven "revolutions" in the ways of society. The change that the distribution of scientific information is undergoing is one of these revolutions. And about revolutions he says:

That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. The importance of any given experiment isn’t apparent at the moment it appears; big changes stall, small changes spread. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen. Agreements on all sides that core institutions must be protected are rendered meaningless by the very people doing the agreeing. (Luther and the Church both insisted, for years, that whatever else happened, no one was talking about a schism.) Ancient social bargains, once disrupted, can neither be mended nor quickly replaced, since any such bargain takes decades to solidify.

There's a lot of debate going on right now – as far as people interested in and involved with science are concerned – over more than just the fate of science journalists who rely on print media for a living. There's debate over exactly how the results of scientific research is recorded and communicated to other scientists, let alone to the general public.

Here's Shirky again, speaking of newspapers but applicable to much else besides:

So who covers all that news if some significant fraction of the currently employed newspaper people lose their jobs?

I don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re collectively living through 1500, when it’s easier to see what’s broken than what will replace it. The internet turns 40 this fall. Access by the general public is less than half that age. Web use, as a normal part of life for a majority of the developed world, is less than half that age. We just got here. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen. ...

[T]here is one possible answer to the question “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” The answer is: Nothing will work, but everything might. Now is the time for experiments, lots and lots of experiments, each of which will seem as minor at launch as craigslist did, as Wikipedia did, as octavo volumes did.

Journalism has always been subsidized. Sometimes it’s been Wal-Mart and the kid with the bike. Sometimes it’s been Richard Mellon Scaife. Increasingly, it’s you and me, donating our time.

Perhaps, in these revolutionary, transitional times, when old, accustomed ways are breaking down, people who are earnestly concerned about such things as science and "public understanding" of science will have to take matters into their own hands.

For the next few decades, journalism will be made up of overlapping special cases. Many of these models will rely on amateurs as researchers and writers. Many of these models will rely on sponsorship or grants or endowments instead of revenues. Many of these models will rely on excitable 14 year olds distributing the results. Many of these models will fail. No one experiment is going to replace what we are now losing with the demise of news on paper, but over time, the collection of new experiments that do work might give us the journalism we need.

Tags: science journalism, science blogging

The war continues . . .

The war against science, that is. Waged by followers of certain religious and political ideologies. Aided and abetted by a populace which has little or no interest in what science is or how it works – but likes to take sides anyhow, regardless of their lack of information on the many issues.

Here's a good, brief summary of the current state of play, from Earle Holland:

The war continues . . .

Ultimately, science is an easy target. Inherent in its practice is its openness to critiques. The “facts” of science will always be corrected, changed, modified, enhanced and altered over time as our understanding improves. Opponents of science recognize this and use it to their advantage.

Researchers and research institutions need to understand this sad truth, and prepare accordingly.

If you need any more evidence about this, just read some of the comments to his post. What's amazing to me is that people who have the same uninformed, radio-talk-show-level opinions on the hot-button issues also have the time to read and comment on a blog like Earle's, but (apparently) not enough time to actually learn some of the relevant science.

Also be sure to have a look at this posting at The Scientist's community BBS, McCain twitters against science. Nonsense from a failed political candidate who has been ignorant about most issues involving science, and much else besides. Does he believe his own nonsense? Silly question. He demonstrated in his campaign failing memory of his own positions on various issues, or even regarding how many homes he owns. But he does know what his political party's base wants to hear...

Scientists and magicians

In the U. S. and many other places around the world, attitudes towards science are decidedly ambiguous.

This shows up in many different ways. During the last election, for example, various issues, about which science has much to say, were matters of contention. Global warming and climate change provide one example. Many issues related to sex and reproductive biology, including sex education and contraception, yield other examples. And of course, tangentially related to those issues was the embryonic stem cells issue. Then there's the matter of the need for protection of biodiversity and endangered species. Finally, opponents of evolution were afraid to make it a serious campaign issue, yet one of the presidential candidates was notably evasive on the question of how evolution should be taught in schools.

To the relief of most people who value science, the election turned out well:

Obama to restore science to its rightful place (1/20/09)

So, the 44th president of the United States has spoken. And what he said will please many supporters of science. Likewise, without explicitly mentioning the environment, president Barack Obama made it clear in his inaugural address today that the US needs to tackle global warming and switch to renewable sources of energy.

The speech will also please internationalists who feel that the US has lost touch with the rest of the world. Significantly for a US president, but less surprising given his African heritage, Obama called on Americans to reach out to and help the world's poorest citizens, clearly referring to the humanitarian and agricultural crises in parts of Africa.

But the nod to open science will be most welcome, given the political and ideological interference of his predecessor, who obstructed stem cell research and only grudgingly accepted that humans are driving climate change.

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost," said Obama.

(That, of course, received widespread attention. Other reactions: here, here, here, here.)

There are several factors at work under the covers that help explain the political opposition to relatively straightforward science. Religious factors, obviously, play some part. Also economic factors, especially in cases where scientific considerations (related to the economics of energy production, and various public health issues, related to tobacco usage, for example) are in conflict with powerful economic interests.

So, what do magicians have to do with any of this?

Well, I've been re-reading Shakespeare's The Tempest, because I've also been re-watching Peter Greenaway's film adaptation, Prospero's Books.

Prospero, the protagonist, is the former Duke of Milan, who has been overthrown by his treacherous brother and exiled to a remote island. He's also a powerful magician, whose enrapture with intellectual pursuits rather than statecraft led to his overthrow.

Prospero can also be seen as a scientist of his era. Greenaway's film elevates the books to a starring role, acknowledged in the title. But this follows Shakespeare, who has Prospero explain how a sympathetic man of Naples (which city was the enemy of Prospero's Milan) furnished the deposed duke upon his exile with many of life's necessities – including books:

Knowing I loved my books, he furnished me
From mine own library with volumes that
I prize above my dukedom.

Greenaway links Prospero's books and his magic with more modern science. The books deal not only with occult arts (as was frequently the association in Elizabethan times), but more scientific topics like natural history, anatomy, and (especially) water.

In linking magic and science through the character of Prospero, however, Shakespeare was hardly alone among notables of Western literature. A recent (May 2008) essay by Philip Ball in Nature touched upon this theme. (Unfortunately, access to the article requires a subscription, but I'll quote a little.)

The topic at hand was the widespread panic last year, among nonscientists, but somewhat legitimized by journalistic sensationalism, that operation of the Large Hadron Collider could lead to the destruction of the universe. (How's that for human hubris?) Ball connects this hysteria with traditional literary associations between scientists and diabolical forces:

Of myths and men (5/2/08)

When physicists dismiss as a myth the charge that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will trigger a process that might destroy the world, they are closer to the truth than they realize.

In common parlance, a myth has come to denote a story that isn’t true, but in fact it is a story that is 'psychologically true'. A myth is not a false story but an archetypal one. And the archetype for this current bout of scare stories is obvious: the Faust myth, in which an hubristic individual unleashes forces he or she cannot control.

Fictional characters Ball mentions as being associated with intellectual overreaching include not only Faust, but also Dr. Frankenstein:

In part, the appeal of these stories is simply the frisson of an eschatological tale, the currency of endless disaster movies. But it is also noteworthy that these are human-made apocalypses, triggered by the heedless quest for knowledge about the Universe.

This is the template that became attached to the Faust legend. Initially a folk tale about an itinerant charlatan with roots that stretch back to the Bible, the Faust story was later blended with the myth of Prometheus, who paid a harsh price for daring to challenge the gods because of his thirst for knowledge. Goethe’s Faust embodied this fusion, and Mary Shelley popularized it in Frankenstein, which she explicitly subtitled ‘Or The Modern Prometheus’. Roslynn Haynes, a professor of English literature, has explored how the Faust myth shaped a common view of the scientist as an arrogant seeker of dangerous and powerful knowledge.

Many other mythological figures could be mentioned, such as Prometheus. Roslynn Haynes' book, titled From Faust to Strangelove: Representations of the Scientist in Western Literature is, unfortunately, out of print.

However, a slightly more recent book by Christopher Toumey – Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life – is still in print, and makes the connection between the diabolical-mad-scientist stereotype and social and political attitudes towards science in the U. S. (and elsewhere).

Other sterotypical mad scientists that Toumey mentions include Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll, H. G. Wells' Dr. Moreau, and Ian Fleming's Dr. No (and Ernst Stavro Blofeld as well, I might add).

Does this hoary literary mythology of mad scientists influence public attitudes towards science? Like Philip Ball, I rather suspect the answer is yes, definitely. We see this all the time in the public hysteria surrounding biotechnology and "genetically modified organisms" and "frankenfoods", as the hysterics like to call them. There's also the ridiculousness over the resistance of the public to the possibility of food from cloned animals, even milk from cloned cows. (See here for an example.)

Now, apparently, this hysteria has spread to nanotechnology as well. There are, to be sure, legitimate concerns about health aspects of some current nanotechnology products. These certainly need to be carefully studied – and that is happening, due to the proper concern of many people who haven't forgotten all the major public health problems of a few pharmaceuticals (e. g. Thalidomide, Fen-phen (see here)) – not to mention things like tobacco and asbestos, which are problematical yet hardly products of modern science.

However, the objections to biotechnology are not only based on public health, but on "moral" issues as well (especially with respect to stem cells, cloning, chimeras, etc.) And we're seeing the same thing happen with nanotechnology – which some now think is also a "moral" issue:

For Nanotechnology, Religion In U.S. Dictates A Wary View (12/7/08)

When it comes to the world of the very, very small — nanotechnology — Americans have a big problem: Nano and its capacity to alter the fundamentals of nature, it seems, are failing the moral litmus test of religion.

In a report published Dec. 7 in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, survey results from the United States and Europe reveal a sharp contrast in the perception that nanotechnology is morally acceptable. Those views, according to the report, correlate directly with aggregate levels of religious views in each country surveyed.

In the United States and a few European countries where religion plays a larger role in everyday life, notably Italy, Austria and Ireland, nanotechnology and its potential to alter living organisms or even inspire synthetic life is perceived as less morally acceptable. In more secular European societies, such as those in France and Germany, individuals are much less likely to view nanotechnology through the prism of religion and find it ethically suspect.

But it's about more than nanotechnology. It's about attitudes towards science in general:

The survey findings, says Scheufele, are important not only because they reveal the paradox of citizens of one of the world's elite technological societies taking a dim view of the implications of a particular technology, but also because they begin to expose broader negative public attitudes toward science when people filter their views through religion.

"What we captured is nanospecific, but it is also representative of a larger attitude toward science and technology," Scheufele says. "It raises a big question: What's really going on in our public discourse where science and religion often clash?"

I'll come back to this aspect of things another time.

Tags: biotechnology, nanotechnology

Warning of nut allergy 'hysteria'

Warning of nut allergy 'hysteria'

Measures to protect children with nut allergies are becoming increasingly absurd and hysterical, say experts.

A peanut on the floor of a US school bus recently led to evacuation and decontamination for fear it might have affected the 10-year-old passengers.

Such extreme steps to reduce exposure to nuts are not isolated and are fuelling fear and anxiety, reports the British Medical Journal Online.

A UK allergy expert said a similar "epidemic" was present in Britain. ...

[Professor Nicolas Christakis, a professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School] said these responses were extreme and had many of the hallmarks of mass psychogenic illness (MPI), previously known as epidemic hysteria.

Often seen occurring in small towns, schools and other institutions, outbreaks of MPI involve healthy people in a flow of anxiety, most often triggered by a fear of contamination.

I think Professor Christakis is so right about this. And I think his observation applies to the way some people react to many things they don't understand, such as the use of pheromones to control destructive insect infestations. See here.

It's very sad, too, that this kind of ignorance is often spread by "journalists" who seem to deliberately ignore important distinctions they ought to understand, to say nothing of the underlying science. As I discussed in my item linked above.

Further reading:

Fear of nuts creating hysteria of epidemic proportions (12/10/08) – press release

Why are U. S. politicians so corrupt?

Because voters elect them based on their looks rather than their ethics. See here for more.

No more business as usual

A million thanks to SusanG at Daily Kos for mentioning this:

Obama's Victory: A Consumer-Citizen Revolt

As recently as this summer, while the economy unraveled (BusinessWeek, 7/14/08), I made two trips to Silicon Valley in the hopes of finding leaders who grasped the crisis—and the opportunity—inherent in the destruction of trust. I listened to Facebook executives but found them obsessed with how to monetize the site with advertising. Their users were not individuals, but "eyeballs." I asked Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt how he would develop and sustain the trust of his users. His response was to cite the provision of two classes of stock intended to insulate top management from investor pressures. I gave a talk on the crisis of trust. The response from self-described Internet court jester Esther Dyson was typical of what I had been hearing: "Personally, I'm not that concerned if people don't trust large institutions."

A few weeks later economic panic gripped the stock market. I flipped on ABC's Sunday morning news show with George Stephanopoulos only to hear economist Larry Summers explaining that the surprising depth of the economic meltdown was due to the loss of trust in institutions. What he didn't say was that this loss of trust is a vast sea whose level has been rising for decades. The subprime debacle and the ensuing credit freeze simply marked the moment when the sea wall was finally breached. ...

So can we invent a business model in which advocacy, support, authenticity, trust, relationship, and profit are linked? Can I write that sentence without invoking fear, disbelief, cynicism, or peals of laughter? The ugly practices that killed trust seem intractable to most people, whether they are the ones trapped inside the money machine or on the receiving end of its operations. But after this election, the answer to these questions has irreversibly changed. The answer today would have to be not only "yes we can" but also "yes we must."

No, this is not about "science" per se, unless one considers the philosophical side of economics (rather than the quantitative side) to be a science. Rather, it is the simple observation that anyone reading the daily news with an open mind can understand: Basing a modern large-scale economy primarily on the evolutionarily ancient motivation of greed and personal self-interest is not working out very well...

And this is infotainment too

Yahoo CEO says company is not 'under siege'

Yang and Yahoo President Susan Decker said the company was reorganizing around four pillars: home page, search, mail and mobile services.

"The essence of Yahoo is being defined today," Yang said. "We have to be incredibly relevant to the consumer. We want you to start your day at Yahoo."

Now I get it. Just an online version of "Good Morning America" (a property of the Mickey Mouse company). (Prediction: Yahoo! will be acquired by Disney. It's a much better fit than with Microsoft. (Regarding which, see here.) And if it happens, you read it here first.)

And exactly when will people wake up to realize they are being insulted when referred to as "consumers"?

This is infotainment

Japanese scientists create microscopic noodle bowl

Japanese scientists say they have used cutting-edge technology to create a noodle bowl so small it can be seen only through a microscope.

Mechanical engineering professor Masayuki Nakao said Thursday he and his students at the University of Tokyo used a carbon-based material to produce a noodle bowl with a diameter 1/25,000 of an inch in a project aimed at developing nanotube-processing technology.

A "carbon-based material"? Aren't all of us carbon-based materials?

What on Earth does the writer of this piece think the information level of readers has sunk to, if it's necessary to use such a locution instead of "carbon nanotube"? And since when is "1/25,000 of an inch" a better way to say "1 micron"?

The Japanese-style ramen bowl was carved out of microscopic nanotubes, Nakao said.

Nanotubes are tube-shaped pieces of carbon, measuring about one-ten-thousandth of the thickness of a human hair.

Carbon nanotubes are being explored for a wide range of uses in electronics and medicine because their structure endows them with powerful physical properties such as a strength greater than steel.

What Pinker said

The Stupidity of Dignity

To understand the source of this topsy-turvy value system, one has to look more deeply at the currents that underlie the Council. Although the Dignity report presents itself as a scholarly deliberation of universal moral concerns, it springs from a movement to impose a radical political agenda, fed by fervent religious impulses, onto American biomedicine.

The report's oddness begins with its list of contributors. Two (Adam Schulman and Daniel Davis) are Council staffers, and wrote superb introductory pieces. Of the remaining 21, four (Leon R. Kass, David Gelernter, Robert George, and Robert Kraynak) are vociferous advocates of a central role for religion in morality and public life, and another eleven work for Christian institutions (all but two of the institutions Catholic). Of course, institutional affiliation does not entail partiality, but, with three-quarters of the invited contributors having religious entanglements, one gets a sense that the fix is in. A deeper look confirms it.

Here's Pinker citing an especially choice quote from Leon Kass, the high-guru of right-wing "bioethics"

Kass has a problem not just with longevity and health but with the modern conception of freedom. There is a "mortal danger," he writes, in the notion "that a person has a right over his body, a right that allows him to do whatever he wants to do with it." He is troubled by cosmetic surgery, by gender reassignment, and by women who postpone motherhood or choose to remain single in their twenties. Sometimes his fixation on dignity takes him right off the deep end:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone--a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. ... Eating on the street--even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat--displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. ... Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. ... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.

And here is my own take on Kass, from almost three years ago.

This new 555-page report that Pinker writes about is just one more salvo in the right-wing war on science. Fortunately, their war is going about as well for them as their war in Iraq. And even more fortunately, the dimwits behind this nonsense seem to be on track to lose big at the polls this fall.

Tags: bioethics, human dignity, Steven Pinker

Something to think about on Superbowl Sunday

This seems just about right:

Sports Machismo May Be Cue To Male Teen Violence

The sports culture surrounding football and wrestling may be fueling aggressive and violent behavior not only among teen male players but also among their male friends and peers on and off the field, according to a Penn State study.

"Sports such as football, basketball, and baseball provide players with a certain status in society," said Derek Kreager, assistant professor of sociology in the Crime, Law, and Justice program. "But football and wrestling are associated with violent behavior because both sports involve some physical domination of the opponent, which is rewarded by the fans, coaches and other players."

Probably has something to do with military recruiting too:

The researcher found that, compared with non-athletes, football players and wrestlers face higher risks of getting into a serious fight by over 40 per cent. High-contact sports that are associated with aggression and masculinity increase the risk of violence, he concluded.

And if you want a little music to go along with this information, try this.

Top science stories of 2007

Well, 2007 has been over for three weeks now. Must be time to look back and figure out what happened there. Overall, I'd say it was a good year, but not a great year. Let's have a look at what others picked for the "top" stories.

Science usually makes pretty good calls, as you'd expect. Since online access is by subscription only, here's my paraphrase of their list of top "breakthroughs":

1. Recognizing human genetic variation – in other words, there's more diversity in human DNA than expected
   
2. Making pluripotent stem cells by reprogramming
   
3. Closing in on the origins of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays
   
4. Determining the structure of a G protein-coupled receptor (for adrenaline)
   
5. Investigating transition metal oxides as an alternative to silicon for electronics
   
6. Exploring the prospects of materials exhibiting the quantum spin Hall effect for realization of spintronics
   
7. Understanding how asymmetric division occurs in CD4 T cells
   
8. Growing ability to synthesize complex pharmaceutical and electronic compounds
   
9. Adding to the evidence that memory is an important ability for imagining future events and situations
   
10. Proving that it is possible (for a computer) to never lose a game of checkers against a human (or another computer)
    

There are some surprising developments in this list – such as the extent of human genetic diversity or (especially) the apparent ease with which cells can be reprogrammed to behave like pluripotent stem cells. But what strikes me most about the list is that not much in it gives a sense of "closure" in the way that, say, determining the genetic code or proving the Poincaré conjecture (last year's top "breakthrough") was.

Instead, what we have are a number of developments that are merely the first steps towards much more impressive things to follow. We are just beginning to understand how genetic programs actually work, especially in disease conditions and in processes like metabolism and cell division. There will be much more meaningful developments with stem cells, protein structure determination, molecular synthesis, non-silicon electronics, spintronics, and nanoscale engineering.

I suppose this is why the items in the list are called "breakthroughs".

Here's a press release from the AAAS with a synopsis of their list: Human genetic variation -- Science's 'Breakthrough of the Year' (Physorg.com)

Many other lists of top stories could be found. Here are some of them, with my somewhat jaundiced opinion of most, as well as a bit of measured praise for the less awful.

2007: A year of stunning progress in the science of life (Guardian Unlimited)

Please read this one. It's not particularly lengthy, and it will be instructive to compare it with most of the other articles summarized below. It's lucid, and not larded with fluff.

In terms of what's actually noted as key advances, it covers genetics, synthetic biology, stem cells, cloning, and regenerative medicine. And despite the title, it also covers climate change and further improved evidence of dark matter.

Year in science review: Global warming, new species (USA Today)

The quality of this list is surprisingly good, considering the source. (Scientific American should be ashamed – fat chance.) Significant items include climate change (a perennial winner), stem cells, the extremely bright supernova SN 2006gy, and the Earthlike planet of Gliese 581. As a sop to the mass-market audience for "science" the list also includes dinosaurs, vanishing honeybees, and the discovery of many new biological species, alongside the looming extinction of others.

2007 News review (NewScientist)

The main list is sparingly presented in a few brief paragraphs. The selections are a bit odd (the dangers of noise pollution? really?). But in a sidebar there's a tidy list of links to separate additional articles, allowing you to easily avoid whatever you might regard as needless tedium. What I don't quite understand is the removal of, oh maybe 75% of science, to a separate article on 2007: The year in biology and medicine.

Top 25 Science Stories of 2007 (Scientific American)

Much of this list is in the nature of tabloid-style science "journalism" – all too pathetic a reminder of what is far too widely considered to be "newsworthy" in the realm of science. Not quite as bad as the printed birdcage liner found at a supermarket checkout station, but close. Daylight saving time redefined? Some guy with TB goes on a honeymoon to Europe? Poisoned pet food? Baseball jocks on steroids? Oh, please. They forgot to mention flying saucer or Yeti sightings – surely there must have been some.

See, the problem with this is that it tends to trivialize, by association, those few stories they included which were actually important, such as climate change, stem cells (the science, not the bogus controversy), and Earthlike extrasolar planets.

Top 10 Scientific Discoveries (Time)

Fortunately, this list is shorter than Scientific American's, so there's less tabloid-style dreck in it. And what there is of that isn't quite so egregious (dinosaurs, "kryptonite", an elderly clam). This makes for a somewhat higher percentage of actual science (stem cells, human genome, supernova SN 2006gy, extrasolar planets).

But here's the depressing thing about this list. Not so much the content, which doesn't quite treat the readership as unqualified imbeciles, but rather the presentation, which treats the readership as short-attention span consumer droids who will docilely plow through separate pages for each story, replete with stock photo imagery, brief text, and delightful time-wasting banner ads and "sponsored links".

Briefly noted: Here are some more specialized or other "best of 2007" lists that don't seem to require much further comment from me. Some are good; others are..., well, just other.

• A Few of Our Favorite Things (ScienceNOW) – limited to items published at ScienceNOW, this list is a little more frivolous and much more entertaining than the Science picks noted above – e. g. this, this, this, and this
  
• The best of 2007 (Physics World) – a must-read for physics fans, includes dark matter, graphene, neutrinos, supersolids, and cosmic rays
  
• Ten Top Physics Stories for 2007 (Physics News Update) – a slightly more esoteric list for physics fans, includes Bose-Einstein condensates, tests of general relativity, neutrinos, top quarks, cosmic rays, and Cooper pairs
  
• Top 100 Science Stories of 2007 (Discover) – exhaustive and exhausting, items are not ranked, but worth scanning for gold nuggets here and there
  
• Bumper year for science (The Australian) – the view from down under is much like that from up above, with an emphasis on climate change, stem cells, cloning, plus Gliese 581
  
• The top 10 news stories of 2007 (Cosmos) – duck genitals and cows that give skim milk – 'nuff said
  
• Planet Earth 2007: Top 10 Science Revelations (LiveScience) – another of those irritating quasi-powerpoint presentations, and limited to Earth sciences
  
• The Top 10 New Organisms of 2007 (Wired News) – why am I even bothering to include this?
  
• 2007 Top Science Stories: USA Today, Sci. American, Wired News, Science (Knight Science Journalism Tracker) – the Tracker's own list of lists
  
• The Year in Science (MSNBC Cosmic Log) – commentary, plus another compilation of "best of 2007" lists. There's also a part 2, part 3, part 4, and The Year in Space
  

School of Business confirms recipe for herd behavior

Popular opinion not always so popular

Whether you're a voter choosing the next president, a manager making policy decisions or a consumer selecting a brand, it's likely your decision is influenced by the opinions of others.

But beware: Your estimate may well be based on a lone, repetitive voice that you've mistaken for a chorus, say researchers at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

Professors Stephen Garcia and Norbert Schwarz say that much like the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, a single opinion repeated often enough has nearly as much influence as one expressed by several people.

"What we think others think greatly influences our own personal thoughts, feelings and behavior," said Garcia, adjunct assistant professor of management and organizations at the Ross School. "Quite obviously, an opinion is likely to be more widely shared the more different people express it. But surprisingly, hearing one person express an opinion repeatedly also leads to the conclusion that the opinion is more widespread relative to hearing the same opinion expressed only once."

Is there any doubt about the reasons this sort of thing is studied and taught in "business schools"?

A fear of pheromones

The following news item has me somewhat steamed:

Ban on Calif. Pesticide Spraying Lifted

The spraying of a pesticide to fight a crop-eating moth can resume after a judge said Friday he was satisfied with a government plan to address environmental and health concerns.

Earlier this month, Judge Robert O'Farrell issued a temporary injunction against the spraying on California's central coast amid concerns over the long-term health effects of CheckMate, which was first dropped in the area last month.

CheckMate is a pheromone spray developed specifically to keep the moth from mating without killing it.

The problem, of course, is that a pheromone is not a pesticide (such as DDT or any other). In common English usage the Latinate suffix "-cide" means killing something or someone. (E. g. "suicide", "genocide", "fratricide".) Pheromones do not kill, either moths or anything else (to the best of anyone's knowledge).

Why is this a problem? Because (in my opinion) it is irresponsible science journalism. And it has consequences. I happen to live in the affected area, and I know there is a lot of heated opposition to this spraying. But I think the opposition is misguided. People are up in arms because they have this general fear of the aerial spraying of strange "chemicals". And it is especially unhelpful for "journalists" and news agencies like the Associated Press, which ought to know better, to be putting out releases that misclassify pheromones as "pesticides".

To be sure, there might still be human or animal health issues associated with the spraying of pheromones. There are certainly some people who are sensitive or allergic to a lot of "chemicals". I do not know for sure whether there are such issues in this case, although it is claimed that "numerous state and federal agencies tested the product and all its ingredients and determined it was safe."

But I do know that the journalism in this case is seriously flawed, and is probably causing a lot of people to worry when they should not need to, simply by calling the pheromones "pesticides", when they are not that at all. Sometimes, not always, chemical sensitivities are psychosomatic. And this is much more likely if the chemicals involved are incorrectly called "pesticides".

Here's a press release from the US Department of Agriculture that says a bit more about the pheromone in question:

New Pheromone Sprayer Leads Amorous Moths Astray

For decades, apple and pear growers have "adorned" their orchards with hundreds of plastic dispensers that emit a chemical sex attractant, or pheromone, to disrupt codling moth mating. Now, thanks to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) studies in Wapato, Wash., growers could soon be spraying the pheromone instead.

Sadly, the Associated Press, even a few days later, was still putting out faulty journalism:

Gov. orders resumption of disputed apple moth pesticide spraying

Something the general population certainly doesn't need is more media confusion about scientific subjects from sources that demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness – and contribute to popular cynicism about journalism in general.

Update (1/18/08): This sort of journalistic malpractice continues: Calif. residents say moth spray dangerous

Residents of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties filed 330 formal complaints to the state related to the light brown apple moth insecticide spraying, and about 300 more complained to doctors or public interest groups, said a report by the California Alliance to stop the Spray, the Santa Cruz (Calif.) Sentinel reported Sunday.

And the same brief article also refers to the pheromone as a "pesticide". Does this sort of incompetence matter? Of course it does. It's quite likely that most of the complainers are reacting to journalistic reports of "pesticides" and "insecticides" rather than what was actually used. Sort of an inverse placebo effect. Misinform people that they've been sprayed with a "poison", and of course some will feel ill. Is it possible there was some real effect? Sure. Whatever substance is involved – including any number that are "organic" or "natural" yet allergenic – there are bound to be at least a few people who might have an adverse reaction. But this can only be greatly magnified by sloppy journalism.

Tags: journalism, pheromones, apple moth, cynicism

The religious right has it wrong

As usual.

Just about everyone except the RR knows this, of course. But here are some recent scientific findings that document the falsity of some common claims of the RR.

Children Of Lesbian Couples Are Doing Well, Study Finds

A study of families in the Netherlands indicates that children raised by lesbian couples “do not differ in well being or child adjustment compared with their counterparts in heterosexual-parent families.”

Doctor-aided Suicide: No Slippery Slope, Study Finds

Contrary to arguments by critics, a University of Utah-led study found that legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands did not result in a disproportionate number of deaths among the elderly, poor, women, minorities, uninsured, minors, chronically ill, less educated or psychiatric patients.

More: here, here

Legal Status Doesn't Deter Abortion

Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe.

(So legality has no effect on the frequency of abortion; it only makes it safer.)

More: here, here, here

Dead tree publishing

Had a few further thoughts on a subject I return to from time to time...

Apropos of this item I mentioned here on the subject of scientific journals and publishing: It is a general fact that paper-based publishing is expensive, because of high fixed costs and marginal costs of materials (paper), printing, and distribution. Since the fixed costs are only slightly proportional to volume, they are especially a problem for small-circulation publications such as scientific journals.

With a high-volume publication such as a celebrity/gossip magazine the fixed costs are relatively small, and in any case there is plenty of advertising revenue to cover the expenses. Not so for scientific journals, or even most scientifically oriented publications for a general audience. The net result is that writers are under considerable pressure to keep their work brief and concise – minimize page count, column-inches, and word count as much as possible within fixed limits of "available" space. "All the news" – and only the news – that fits is printed.

Consequently, in publications for a general audience, there is a lot of pressure to leave out details and background that is "too technical", in favor of light and fluffy material that readers with a 9th grade reading level can easily absorb. Experienced science writers who advise aspiring writers cringe – literally – when critiquing the work of advisees if it is too lengthly and detailed. (Yes, S. B., I mean you.)

But the other side of the coin is that the writers of papers published in scientific and technical journals are subjected to draconian page count or word count limits, or even must pay (from their grants or institutional budgets) for each page published. And so they are under pressure to leave out all non-technical details, explanations, and background that the professional audience is presumed to know. And consequently, even if some member of the public who is not professional in the specific field of the journal article should happen to gain access to it, such a reader is likely to have difficulty deciphering the necessarily cryptic language of professionals in the field.

Online publication of technical scientific research does, or can, change all that. If the publication is entirely online, the costs of materials, printing, and distribution can be drastically lower. Even if printed publication is continued, online versions can be relieved of most or all space constraints, allowing writers to add to the online version as much explanatory detail and background as they wish. And at the same time, readers benefit from greatly reduced (or eliminated) charges, and the freedom to read only the parts suitable for their level of expertise.

It seems to me that everyone – except maybe the for-profit publishers – stands to benefit from open-access, low-price or free, online publication. Am I missing something?

Comments are welcome.

Skip Buying Extra Stuff And Take A Vacation Instead

Skip Buying Extra Stuff And Take A Vacation Instead

Shopping for that new high-definition television this summer? Skip it, and take a vacation instead, says a University of Colorado at Boulder psychologist who studies happiness.

Assistant Professor Leaf Van Boven has conducted numerous surveys and experiments spanning several years and has found that life experiences, such as vacations, generally make people from various walks of life happier than material possessions.

One reason for this is that experiences are more open to positive reinterpretation, or mental editing, than material possessions. And vacations are a perfect example of this, according to Van Boven.

Sorry, the title of this was so good, I just couldn't resist.

I cannot see exactly why this is "science", nor why one might need surveys or a professor of psychology to validate the accuracy of the advice. Many times, it seems to me, psychological research only corroborates the obvious. This is one of those times.

I'll just chime in with a little advice of my own. This applies especially if you're young. Don't put off until "some other time" a vacation or other adventure if you can possibly do it when the opportunity presents itself. Especially if it's something simple but perhaps a bit strenuous or requires you to go a bit outside your comfort zone. Like, say, a camping trip without a lot of fancy gear, to some place that doesn't have a lot of tourist amenities.

You may find you remember fondly even the less idyllic parts, like spending days or nights in a tent, while the rain never stops coming down, and you can't even enjoy your electronic toys like the iPod 'cuz the battery needs a charge. Maybe that'll be the time the only thing you can think of for fun is taking off all your clothes and playing outside in the rain and the mud. Maybe that's what you'll remember the rest of your life.

Just don't keep putting off that sort of thing. Once you have kids (and you very probably will), there will be too many options you just don't want to take the chance on. Or that are plainly out of the question.

And don't think you'll have the chance again later, once the kids are grown. Even if your health and strength remain good (as is likely, though hardly a sure thing), what you will find is that you just don't want to take the kind of chances you did when younger, or to give up some luxuries or comforts you "just can't do without" now. To say nothing of the chances that your companion will still feel a similar spirit of adventure in the future.

Oh, yeah, one other consideration. Barring major catastrophe, the world won't have fewer people on it in a few decades, either nearby or in pleasant, little-known remote places. The "good places" keep getting discovered and ruined by popularity. Enjoy them now, before the crowds and the developers find them. And with climate change a pretty sure thing, many lakes, snowfields, woodlands, meadows will be only memories much sooner than anyone expects.

Scientists and Engineers for America

This seems like a great idea to me. If you think that science is being distorted or misrepresented politically in the U. S., this is something you ought to look into.

Scientists and Engineers for America

Today a group of scientists and concerned citizens launch a new organization, Scientists and Engineers for America, dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.

The principal role of the science and technology community is to advance human understanding. But there are times when this is not enough. Scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.

The U. S. is losing in science and technology

Not to be alarmist or anything, but...

Quoting Ray Kurzweil from this discussion at Edge:

You'll be pleased to know that things are not slowed down in China and India. I've got some graphs showing engineers' levels are declining in the United States; they're soaring in China. China's graduating 300,000 engineers a year compared to 50,000 in the United States.

From another article:

According to a survey in Physical Review, reported in May 2004, the number of scientific papers published by West European authors had overtaken those by U.S. authors in 2003, whereas in 1983 there were three American authors for every West European. The percentage of patents granted to American scientists has been falling since 1980, from 60.2 percent of the world total to 51.8 percent. In 1989, America trained the same number of science and engineering PhDs as Britain, Germany and France put together; now the United States is 5 percent behind. The number of citations in science journals, hitherto led by American scientists, is now led by Europeans.

It wouldn't be any surprise in 10 or 15 years to see a similar report regarding U. S./Europe combined vs. China/India/elsewhere in Asia...

Already Korea seems to be leading the world in stem cell work... Venter, in the Edge article referred to above, notes that "There are an awful lot of people who don't go into stem cell research right now, a lot has been shut down, a lot of scientists have had to leave the country to try and continue their research, a lot of money that could have gone to it has been diverted."

One could also observe that the world's largest high-energy physics facility for at least the next 15 years, CERN, is located on the French/Swiss border, and the next-generation experimental fusion reactor, ITER, will be in France. (Japan was the alternative; the U. S. wasn't even in the running.)

Folks, it could well be that the game's over, and the U. S. has already lost, though it hasn't realized that yet.