Friday Fragments
4 years ago
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Almost Famous
Thanks to one of our long-active and soon-to-be-missed members, the UW Postdoctoral Association has been written up in the UW Weekly. We used our recent self-organized 2nd Annual Postdoctoral Research Symposium as an excuse to try to make the campus more aware of our hidden, underserved, yet vital population. Given that only a few dozen people attended, perhaps next time we should aim for a press release PRIOR to the event...
Friday, December 01, 2006
Secret agents, causing cancer
You've probably heard that former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko died last month of acute radiation poisoning from polonium 210, possibly courtesy of the Kremlin. But while most people are aware that getting yourself on the hitlist of Russian intelligence services has to be hazardous to your health, not everyone may know about a much more ubiquitous and insidious source of polonium 210: cigarettes.
As Robert Proctor explains in today's NY Times, the tobacco industry has known since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant amounts of polonium, perhaps increased by the use of phosphate fertilizers in tobacco cultivation. Along with tar, nicotine, and cyanide, pack-and-a-half smokers receive the radioactive equivalent of about 300 chest X-rays every year. So, like the unfortunate recent associates of the late Mr. Litvinenko, smokers are at significant risk of radiation-induced cancer over their lifetimes.
According to Dr. Proctor, cigarettes claimed about 10 million lives in the 20th century. But with the aggressive infiltration of huge global markets like China, this number could reach a billion in the 21st.
You've come a long way, baby.
As Robert Proctor explains in today's NY Times, the tobacco industry has known since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant amounts of polonium, perhaps increased by the use of phosphate fertilizers in tobacco cultivation. Along with tar, nicotine, and cyanide, pack-and-a-half smokers receive the radioactive equivalent of about 300 chest X-rays every year. So, like the unfortunate recent associates of the late Mr. Litvinenko, smokers are at significant risk of radiation-induced cancer over their lifetimes.
According to Dr. Proctor, cigarettes claimed about 10 million lives in the 20th century. But with the aggressive infiltration of huge global markets like China, this number could reach a billion in the 21st.
You've come a long way, baby.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Mixed Thoughts on Muslims
This started on Sunday, when I was snowed in at my boyfriend's across the water and we watched "Mangal Pandey," got to talking about the first War for Indian Independence and later Gandhi's successful nonviolent revolt, and then stayed up half the night discussing religion. He (born and raised in South India) took the position (grossly paraphrased) that Hinduism is superior to Islam because it has successfully absorbed many gods and practices, is tolerant of other faiths, and has shown itself to be capable of changing with the times (at least under duress). In contrast, Islam is rigid, intolerant, and resistant to progress, remaining stuck in feudal society while the rest of the world modernized. He blames the Koran for allowing too much flexibility in interpretation and thus too much power and influence to individual Imams.
I maintained that he was comparing apples and oranges. In my view, Hinduism belongs in the same league as Judaism, with its large number of dietary and other ritualized everyday practices, its wide range of degrees of belief/observance compatible with membership, and especially its acquisition by chance at birth, with a comcomitant complete lack of interest in converting outsiders. Islam is much more appropriately compared to Christianity, and perhaps particularly Catholicism (my own religious background), although any paternalistic and sexually repressive fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect will serve.
Yesterday my boyfriend followed up our discussion with a link to this column, which basically complains that, unlike the previous waves of Europeans who have become part of the great American melting pot despite historical anti-immigrant hysteria, "the Muslim immigrants of today are showing absolutely no signs of even wanting to integrate." Is this a fair characterization? Surely many Muslims are attempting to do so, although without sacrificing their own religious and cultural practices. And ethnic enclaves are a long-standing tradition in America, tending to last at least as long as the initial wave of first generation elders. Heck, there are still places in Pennsylvania where English is a foreign language, ja?
The writer continues, "Worst of all, some of them are now trying to insist that the host nations adjust to their desires rather than the other way round, the taxi drivers of Minneapolis [who declined to transport passengers carrying alcohol] being a perfect example." But is this any different from Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B? It seems to me that fundamentalists of any faith will have rigid beliefs and practices that are likely to come into conflict with a wider secular or pluralistic society.
Perhaps Muslims on average currently tend more towards paternalistic, fundamentalist beliefs and practices than the world's Christians (or Hindus). But I bet that if you controlled for income and education, these populations would not be significantly different. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem, though, I admit. How do you separate religion from cultural practices dictated by other factors including historical political structures?
A letter published in this week's issue of Nature had this to say about the current lack of capacity for science in Islamic countries: "...Paternalistic cultures in the Islamic countries can more reasonably be blamed. Under these cultures, inquiry and freedom of expression are actively discouraged in the home, at school, at work and in response to government policies. The capacity for critical analysis is a fundamental requirement for science, but where it has no chance of developing under lifelong suppression, how can science and research be expected to flourish?"
Islamic societies certainly were not always incompatible with science - during Europe's Dark Age, Muslims preserved a great deal of ancient wisdom and developed important innovations, particularly in mathematics. But the replacement of a more rational school of theology by Sunni orthodoxy in the tenth through thirteenth centuries may have created a cultural climate in which science failed to flourish as before.
Finally (and I think coincidentally), I've been enjoying this book on world myths/religions and their origins, and pondering the debt that Western Civilization owes the great Greek innovations of secular humanism: ethics and law. Was it chance or fate that allowed a bunch of barbarian tribes to build on the achievements of the Greeks and Romans, leading to an avalanche of technological innovations? And if some other civilization had beaten Christian Europe to the punch, would we be sulking in a corner, constructing ideological walls against the foreign powers that threatened our ways of life and thought?
I maintained that he was comparing apples and oranges. In my view, Hinduism belongs in the same league as Judaism, with its large number of dietary and other ritualized everyday practices, its wide range of degrees of belief/observance compatible with membership, and especially its acquisition by chance at birth, with a comcomitant complete lack of interest in converting outsiders. Islam is much more appropriately compared to Christianity, and perhaps particularly Catholicism (my own religious background), although any paternalistic and sexually repressive fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect will serve.
Yesterday my boyfriend followed up our discussion with a link to this column, which basically complains that, unlike the previous waves of Europeans who have become part of the great American melting pot despite historical anti-immigrant hysteria, "the Muslim immigrants of today are showing absolutely no signs of even wanting to integrate." Is this a fair characterization? Surely many Muslims are attempting to do so, although without sacrificing their own religious and cultural practices. And ethnic enclaves are a long-standing tradition in America, tending to last at least as long as the initial wave of first generation elders. Heck, there are still places in Pennsylvania where English is a foreign language, ja?
The writer continues, "Worst of all, some of them are now trying to insist that the host nations adjust to their desires rather than the other way round, the taxi drivers of Minneapolis [who declined to transport passengers carrying alcohol] being a perfect example." But is this any different from Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B? It seems to me that fundamentalists of any faith will have rigid beliefs and practices that are likely to come into conflict with a wider secular or pluralistic society.
Perhaps Muslims on average currently tend more towards paternalistic, fundamentalist beliefs and practices than the world's Christians (or Hindus). But I bet that if you controlled for income and education, these populations would not be significantly different. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem, though, I admit. How do you separate religion from cultural practices dictated by other factors including historical political structures?
A letter published in this week's issue of Nature had this to say about the current lack of capacity for science in Islamic countries: "...Paternalistic cultures in the Islamic countries can more reasonably be blamed. Under these cultures, inquiry and freedom of expression are actively discouraged in the home, at school, at work and in response to government policies. The capacity for critical analysis is a fundamental requirement for science, but where it has no chance of developing under lifelong suppression, how can science and research be expected to flourish?"
Islamic societies certainly were not always incompatible with science - during Europe's Dark Age, Muslims preserved a great deal of ancient wisdom and developed important innovations, particularly in mathematics. But the replacement of a more rational school of theology by Sunni orthodoxy in the tenth through thirteenth centuries may have created a cultural climate in which science failed to flourish as before.
Finally (and I think coincidentally), I've been enjoying this book on world myths/religions and their origins, and pondering the debt that Western Civilization owes the great Greek innovations of secular humanism: ethics and law. Was it chance or fate that allowed a bunch of barbarian tribes to build on the achievements of the Greeks and Romans, leading to an avalanche of technological innovations? And if some other civilization had beaten Christian Europe to the punch, would we be sulking in a corner, constructing ideological walls against the foreign powers that threatened our ways of life and thought?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Drug Pushers
On Thursday, the NY Times ran this scary article on the increasing use of multiple psychotropic drugs by children. Over 3.5 million kids in the US are being medicated with stimulants (mainly for A.D.H.D.), which can cause stunted growth and sleeping problems. Nearly 2 million are given antidepressants, which have been shown to trigger suicidal thoughts and behaviors in some children. Others receive anticonvulsants, which can cause liver and pancreas damage and fatal skin rashes, or antipsychotics, which can cause rapid weight gain, diabetes, and irreversible tics. And fully 1.6 million are given at least two drugs in combination, either because a single drug is not effective enough or in order to treat its side effects, even though there is virtually no scientific evidence showing that such combinations are helpful in young patients.
Coincidentally, on Friday night the Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Justice hosted a film/discussion on "Big Bucks, Big Pharma," an expose of the pharmaceutical industry. If you've ever wondered why health care in America costs so much and yet ranks only 37th in effectiveness worldwide, alongside impoverished Cuba, consider the fact that 100,000 Americans die each year of adverse effects from prescription drugs administered at recommended doses. How much more morbidity is being created by the ubiquitous use of costly and often unneeded drugs instead of more effective - but far less profitable - healthy lifestyle changes and preventative care?
How has legal drug pushing become so prevalent in our society? Relaxation of laws in recent years have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to market their products directly to consumers in magazine and television ads, creating consumer curiosity and even brand loyalty for products that may not even be appropriate, much less necessary. Add to this the $8 billion spent each year on medical journal ads and promotional gifts and trips for physicians under the rubric of "education," the effectiveness of which has prompted the American Medical Student Association to promote a Pharm Free Pledge to its members stating they will "accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry" and "seek unbiased sources of information."
I am not trying to downplay the existence of serious illness and suffering that could be helped by medication. But it seems clear to me that pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with creating demand for their products, charging all that the market will bear, and keeping sick people alive but dependent on their drugs, than they are with providing safe, effective, affordable healthcare. And it doesn't surprise or upset me - it's just as any big business would behave in a capitalistic society. It is our responsibility to reign them in, to raise our voices against their huge lobbying forces in Washington and our state capitals and demand more rigorous regulation, to ask for fewer and less expensive drugs from our doctors, and to refuse the medicalization of natural human variation in our society - particularly in our schools, where our most vulnerable citizens are paying the price.
Coincidentally, on Friday night the Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Justice hosted a film/discussion on "Big Bucks, Big Pharma," an expose of the pharmaceutical industry. If you've ever wondered why health care in America costs so much and yet ranks only 37th in effectiveness worldwide, alongside impoverished Cuba, consider the fact that 100,000 Americans die each year of adverse effects from prescription drugs administered at recommended doses. How much more morbidity is being created by the ubiquitous use of costly and often unneeded drugs instead of more effective - but far less profitable - healthy lifestyle changes and preventative care?
How has legal drug pushing become so prevalent in our society? Relaxation of laws in recent years have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to market their products directly to consumers in magazine and television ads, creating consumer curiosity and even brand loyalty for products that may not even be appropriate, much less necessary. Add to this the $8 billion spent each year on medical journal ads and promotional gifts and trips for physicians under the rubric of "education," the effectiveness of which has prompted the American Medical Student Association to promote a Pharm Free Pledge to its members stating they will "accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry" and "seek unbiased sources of information."
I am not trying to downplay the existence of serious illness and suffering that could be helped by medication. But it seems clear to me that pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with creating demand for their products, charging all that the market will bear, and keeping sick people alive but dependent on their drugs, than they are with providing safe, effective, affordable healthcare. And it doesn't surprise or upset me - it's just as any big business would behave in a capitalistic society. It is our responsibility to reign them in, to raise our voices against their huge lobbying forces in Washington and our state capitals and demand more rigorous regulation, to ask for fewer and less expensive drugs from our doctors, and to refuse the medicalization of natural human variation in our society - particularly in our schools, where our most vulnerable citizens are paying the price.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Bush's Bipartisanship
In a gracious extension of the olive branch to the incoming Democratic majority, President Bush is renominating a bunch of previously rejected candidates for appellate court judgeships, including William "mining lobbyist" Myers, Michael "ABA unqualified" Wallace, Terrence "civil rights, snivel rights" Boyle, and William "legalize torture" Haynes. He is also pushing the Senate again to confirm John "Bully" Bolton as permanent ambassador to the United Nations.
In an even more conciliatory gesture, Bush is also appointing OB-GYN Eric Keroack to head family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a bit like putting the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in charge of the Armed Forces, except with less inspiring speeches. Keroack is the medical director for A Woman's Concern, a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception, and does not distribute information promoting birth control. This experience should serve him exceedingly well in advising Secretary Mike Leavitt on reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy and in controlling $283 million in annual family-planning grants designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to low income persons.
In an even more conciliatory gesture, Bush is also appointing OB-GYN Eric Keroack to head family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a bit like putting the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in charge of the Armed Forces, except with less inspiring speeches. Keroack is the medical director for A Woman's Concern, a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception, and does not distribute information promoting birth control. This experience should serve him exceedingly well in advising Secretary Mike Leavitt on reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy and in controlling $283 million in annual family-planning grants designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to low income persons.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
And to think I voted for her once
The Democrats took Congress earlier this month in large part due to voters' frustration over Republican corruption and incompetence. But it already looks as though the fervent promises of housecleaning and election reform will turn out to be no more than lip service on the campaign trail.
For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, has said she is opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it. As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.” Could it be that Democrats have a skeleton or two hiding in their closets, or is this part of a backroom deal with frightened Republicans that will leave the American people with the short end of the stick?
Meanwhile, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois is preparing a proposal to provide public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates in order to reduce dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 90 Democrats have signed a pledge endorsing the idea.
But how far will it get when incumbents by definition have no incentive to change the system that has served them so well in the past? As Ms. Feinstein puts it, “You use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but — I was going to use the term ‘nut’— may be mentally incompetent." That would be "worthy opponent" to you, witch.
For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, has said she is opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it. As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.” Could it be that Democrats have a skeleton or two hiding in their closets, or is this part of a backroom deal with frightened Republicans that will leave the American people with the short end of the stick?
Meanwhile, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois is preparing a proposal to provide public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates in order to reduce dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 90 Democrats have signed a pledge endorsing the idea.
But how far will it get when incumbents by definition have no incentive to change the system that has served them so well in the past? As Ms. Feinstein puts it, “You use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but — I was going to use the term ‘nut’— may be mentally incompetent." That would be "worthy opponent" to you, witch.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Reluctant reinvigoration
I have to admit that I'd been pretty down on the idea of pursuing a career in academic science of late. I'm almost two years into my postdoc without so much as a manuscript in sight. One of my key experiments, which takes at least a month to conduct, had failed four out of five times due to equipment breakdown. I'd developed an ulcer. I'd been spending less time at the bench, putting more time into volunteering for my local Postdoc Association and other more immediately gratifying activities.
Fortunately, I was forced to do two things this week that initially didn't strike me as fun. Yesterday I had to write and submit an abstract on one of my projects and a statement about my research interests for an upcoming meeting. And once that was done, I had to reread the background material for one of the aims of my other project in order to present a journal article for my PI's class. I was so depressed about my science and my chances of ever getting results/a paper/a job that I naturally put both tasks off until the last minute.
But you know what? Both experiences helped enormously. First, of course, I LIKE writing (hence this blog), and it felt good just to put words together in a satisfying way and for a useful purpose (plus, unlike this blog, the abstract will almost certainly get read and result in feedback). And more importantly, articulating my long term scientific interests and reminding myself of just how nicely my current projects serve those interests really rekindled my enthusiasm for them.
This still doesn't mean that I'll master my system, work out the bugs in our equipment, and get data worth publishing in a timely manner. But I've regained my faith that if I do, the results will be interesting and important and will lead to even more interesting and important things - more than enough on which to build a career. I think I really did pick the right lab for my postdoctoral work. Now if I can just manage to take greater advantage of it...
Fortunately, I was forced to do two things this week that initially didn't strike me as fun. Yesterday I had to write and submit an abstract on one of my projects and a statement about my research interests for an upcoming meeting. And once that was done, I had to reread the background material for one of the aims of my other project in order to present a journal article for my PI's class. I was so depressed about my science and my chances of ever getting results/a paper/a job that I naturally put both tasks off until the last minute.
But you know what? Both experiences helped enormously. First, of course, I LIKE writing (hence this blog), and it felt good just to put words together in a satisfying way and for a useful purpose (plus, unlike this blog, the abstract will almost certainly get read and result in feedback). And more importantly, articulating my long term scientific interests and reminding myself of just how nicely my current projects serve those interests really rekindled my enthusiasm for them.
This still doesn't mean that I'll master my system, work out the bugs in our equipment, and get data worth publishing in a timely manner. But I've regained my faith that if I do, the results will be interesting and important and will lead to even more interesting and important things - more than enough on which to build a career. I think I really did pick the right lab for my postdoctoral work. Now if I can just manage to take greater advantage of it...
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Two Triumphs
The South African Parliament just voted overwhelmingly to join the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada in legalizing same-sex marriages. If President Thabo Mbeki signs the bill into law, South Africa will stand alone among African nations, many of which still treat homosexuality as a crime as serious as rape or murder. The African National Congress has been criticized for pressuring its legislators to support the bill, regardless of their personal beliefs. But as the party's caucus chairman put it, “How do you allow for someone to vote against the Constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?” Word.
And in a smaller but still significant step, the Pakistan National Assembly passed the Protection of Women Bill, which includes amendments to the 1979 law known as the Hudood Ordinance. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, judges will gain the option of trying rape cases in a civil court, whereas previously women would have had to use an Islamic court, produce four male witnesses, and risk conviction for adultery. In addition, the current penalty for consensual sex outside of marriage, flogging or even death, would be reduced to five years in jail or a substantial fine. It's not the full repeal of the Hudood Ordinance that human rights activists hoped for, but at least rape victims should have more of an incentive to bring their attackers to justice.
And in a smaller but still significant step, the Pakistan National Assembly passed the Protection of Women Bill, which includes amendments to the 1979 law known as the Hudood Ordinance. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, judges will gain the option of trying rape cases in a civil court, whereas previously women would have had to use an Islamic court, produce four male witnesses, and risk conviction for adultery. In addition, the current penalty for consensual sex outside of marriage, flogging or even death, would be reduced to five years in jail or a substantial fine. It's not the full repeal of the Hudood Ordinance that human rights activists hoped for, but at least rape victims should have more of an incentive to bring their attackers to justice.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
How am I happy? Let me count the ways...
1. Don Rumsfeld finally got the boot, and I'm glad they were dumb enough to wait until AFTER the elections because
2. We gained 6 seats, winning a majority in the Senate AND
3. We gained 28 seats, winning a majority in the House, meaning
4. Nancy Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House
5. Rick Santorum and George Allen are outta here
6. South Dakota voters overturned their state's abortion ban
7. Oregon and California voters defeated parental notification laws
8. Missouri voters endorsed stem cell research
9. Arizona voters rejected a ban on gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships
10. Property rights measures failed to pass in California, Idaho, and Washington
11. Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio voters raised the minimum wage
12. The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has promised to reestablish the subcommittee on oversight and investigations
If you can think of any more big progressive victories, add them to the Comments!
2. We gained 6 seats, winning a majority in the Senate AND
3. We gained 28 seats, winning a majority in the House, meaning
4. Nancy Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House
5. Rick Santorum and George Allen are outta here
6. South Dakota voters overturned their state's abortion ban
7. Oregon and California voters defeated parental notification laws
8. Missouri voters endorsed stem cell research
9. Arizona voters rejected a ban on gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships
10. Property rights measures failed to pass in California, Idaho, and Washington
11. Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio voters raised the minimum wage
12. The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has promised to reestablish the subcommittee on oversight and investigations
If you can think of any more big progressive victories, add them to the Comments!
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Too Close NOT to Call
You've already voted, of course. If you're like me, you requested an absentee ballot months ago but are mailing it at the very last minute (as usual). What's left to do but wait and watch the exit polls?
Simple: Volunteer to call other registered voters and remind them to get to the polls. Even if you can only give half an hour of your time, it could make a difference in one of the incredibly close races taking place today.
The Republicans are throwing money at sophisticated automated telephone services like this one. Progressives rely on dedicated volunteers like you. Can you help call for change today? Just click on the image below.
And now a few choice words from Lazarus Long:
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures that you want to vote for... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against." - Time Enough for Love, copyright 1973 by Robert A. Heinlein.
Simple: Volunteer to call other registered voters and remind them to get to the polls. Even if you can only give half an hour of your time, it could make a difference in one of the incredibly close races taking place today.
The Republicans are throwing money at sophisticated automated telephone services like this one. Progressives rely on dedicated volunteers like you. Can you help call for change today? Just click on the image below.
And now a few choice words from Lazarus Long:
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures that you want to vote for... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against." - Time Enough for Love, copyright 1973 by Robert A. Heinlein.
Monday, November 06, 2006
NIH family fellowship
Have you heard about the new NIH family fellowship that will allow postdoctoral researchers either to take extended paid parental leave for up to 12 months or work parttime for up to 5 years?
No? Well, that might be because it doesn't exist - yet. But check out the proposal and discussion board here, add your name in support, and publicize it to your department/university. This could make a huge difference to the retention of talented female scientists currently forced to choose between career and family, given the extremely limited opportunities for postdoctoral maternity leave at most universities.
No? Well, that might be because it doesn't exist - yet. But check out the proposal and discussion board here, add your name in support, and publicize it to your department/university. This could make a huge difference to the retention of talented female scientists currently forced to choose between career and family, given the extremely limited opportunities for postdoctoral maternity leave at most universities.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The (Science) World Is Flat
I just saw a lecture hosted by one of my favorite Pacific NW organizations, the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy. Dr. Neal Lane, former NSF Director and science advisor to President Clinton, outlined the post-WWII history of U.S. government investment in science and explained how our cutting edge is being lost to rising stars in Asia.
Borrowing from The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, Dr. Lane listed the major reasons for America's ongoing scientific decline:
(1) Too little government investment in science
$63 billion may sound like a lot, but it's less than 2.5% of our federal budget, the vast majority of which goes to interest on the national debt, defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Private industry spends twice as much on research and development.
(2) Too few people in science
Although practically everyone I know at the postdoc level is deeply skeptical about future job prospects, Dr. Lane insisted that we will not be able to recruit enough talent as time goes on, mostly because
(3) Too few U.S. citizens understand science
That's right, our science and math education sucks here relative to the rest of the developed world - our kids may feel good, but they know almost nothing. For example, only 50% of Americans know that it takes the Earth one year to go around the sun. And Asia is really building up its own academic infrastructure these days, so we're not going to be such a coveted destination for foreign talent pretty soon.
(4) Too much ideology
Dr. Lane didn't need to go into too much detail here - from teaching creationism in science classes to prohibiting stem cell research on embryos that would otherwise be tossed out by fertility clinics, I think we all know what he meant.
(5) Too much politics
Even when the vast majority of scientists agree, special interests can drum up "controversy" to cast doubt on our findings or impede citizens and government from taking action. Prime example: manmade climate change.
(6) Public confidence in science is fragile
The good news is, Americans generally approve of government spending on scientific research. The bad news is, they don't understand it, they don't necessarily appreciate the return on their investment, and it's not a high priority on the federal budget when push comes to shove. And that's OUR FAULT for failing to educate and connect with the public.
George Brown (CA) urged us to become "civic scientists" and get involved in the political process. This is all the more important at a time when the basic liberties of inquiry are threatened. As Einstein said in 1950, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." That freedom, born of relative wealth and the Constitution, is the one advantage we have over Asia Rising... for now.
Borrowing from The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, Dr. Lane listed the major reasons for America's ongoing scientific decline:
(1) Too little government investment in science
$63 billion may sound like a lot, but it's less than 2.5% of our federal budget, the vast majority of which goes to interest on the national debt, defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Private industry spends twice as much on research and development.
(2) Too few people in science
Although practically everyone I know at the postdoc level is deeply skeptical about future job prospects, Dr. Lane insisted that we will not be able to recruit enough talent as time goes on, mostly because
(3) Too few U.S. citizens understand science
That's right, our science and math education sucks here relative to the rest of the developed world - our kids may feel good, but they know almost nothing. For example, only 50% of Americans know that it takes the Earth one year to go around the sun. And Asia is really building up its own academic infrastructure these days, so we're not going to be such a coveted destination for foreign talent pretty soon.
(4) Too much ideology
Dr. Lane didn't need to go into too much detail here - from teaching creationism in science classes to prohibiting stem cell research on embryos that would otherwise be tossed out by fertility clinics, I think we all know what he meant.
(5) Too much politics
Even when the vast majority of scientists agree, special interests can drum up "controversy" to cast doubt on our findings or impede citizens and government from taking action. Prime example: manmade climate change.
(6) Public confidence in science is fragile
The good news is, Americans generally approve of government spending on scientific research. The bad news is, they don't understand it, they don't necessarily appreciate the return on their investment, and it's not a high priority on the federal budget when push comes to shove. And that's OUR FAULT for failing to educate and connect with the public.
George Brown (CA) urged us to become "civic scientists" and get involved in the political process. This is all the more important at a time when the basic liberties of inquiry are threatened. As Einstein said in 1950, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." That freedom, born of relative wealth and the Constitution, is the one advantage we have over Asia Rising... for now.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Happy Halloween!
I type this post from the basement room housing our confocal microscope, dressed as a monarch butterfly.
I don't have anything scintillating to report, other than that I heard on NPR recently that the most popular original paper source of counterfeit US dollars is the now practically worthless Iraqi dinar (talk about adding insult to injury).
But I direct you to a terrific post and discussion about the essential unpaid work OUTSIDE of the home expected of Stay at Home Moms (well, Parents, but the vast majority are Moms) over at Bitch Ph.D.
And if you have small children, bring 'em by my house - I always buy too much candy.
I don't have anything scintillating to report, other than that I heard on NPR recently that the most popular original paper source of counterfeit US dollars is the now practically worthless Iraqi dinar (talk about adding insult to injury).
But I direct you to a terrific post and discussion about the essential unpaid work OUTSIDE of the home expected of Stay at Home Moms (well, Parents, but the vast majority are Moms) over at Bitch Ph.D.
And if you have small children, bring 'em by my house - I always buy too much candy.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Unlawful combatants
The International Herald Tribune recently featured this article quoting Martin Scheinin, the United Nations' expert on protecting human rights in the fight against terrorism, on the Military Commissions Act President Bush signed into law earlier this month: "One of the most serious aspects of this legislation is the power of the president to declare anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge as an 'unlawful enemy combatant' - a term unknown in international humanitarian law."
Think about what this means if you haven't already. You could be arrested and detained indefinitely WITHOUT CHARGE for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Assuming that you were lucky enough to be tried rather than imprisoned for years and tortured for information, you would be subject to a military trial, not a civilian court of law, and would not have the right to see classified evidence that could exonerate you. And that's if you're a US citizen. If you're merely a legal permanent resident, you don't even have the right to challenge the legality of your detention.
Although we are fighting a "war on terror" with no foreseeable end, we have decided that the soldiers on the other side do not deserve to be treated like prisoners of war, subject to those pesky Geneva Conventions that preclude coercive interrogation. A case certainly could be (and has been) made that individuals failing to respect "the laws and customs of war," whatever those may be, are not subject to said Conventions. But without a fair trial, how can we even justly determine whether or not a particular person has failed to respect those laws and customs?
How does denying Constitutional rights to US citizens and legal residents protect our freedom? Clearly the terrorists are winning. What is terrorism, after all, but using illegal acts to intimidate other people into acting against their own best interests?
Think about what this means if you haven't already. You could be arrested and detained indefinitely WITHOUT CHARGE for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Assuming that you were lucky enough to be tried rather than imprisoned for years and tortured for information, you would be subject to a military trial, not a civilian court of law, and would not have the right to see classified evidence that could exonerate you. And that's if you're a US citizen. If you're merely a legal permanent resident, you don't even have the right to challenge the legality of your detention.
Although we are fighting a "war on terror" with no foreseeable end, we have decided that the soldiers on the other side do not deserve to be treated like prisoners of war, subject to those pesky Geneva Conventions that preclude coercive interrogation. A case certainly could be (and has been) made that individuals failing to respect "the laws and customs of war," whatever those may be, are not subject to said Conventions. But without a fair trial, how can we even justly determine whether or not a particular person has failed to respect those laws and customs?
How does denying Constitutional rights to US citizens and legal residents protect our freedom? Clearly the terrorists are winning. What is terrorism, after all, but using illegal acts to intimidate other people into acting against their own best interests?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A more perfect union?
As this NY Times article reports, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples. The Court has ordered the Legislature to create and modify laws that will provide gay couples with benefits previously restricted to heterosexual couples, including tuition assistance, survivors’ benefits under workers’ compensation laws, and spousal privilege in criminal trials. However, the Court was split on the issue of whether to refer to homosexual unions as marriages or whether another term could be used and has left that determination up to the Legislature.
Naturally reactions differ. Some conservative groups are outraged that gay couples are being dignified with the same rights as heterosexual ones, which apparently poses some kind of threat to procreation. Some gay rights activists are unwilling to settle for civil union rather than marriage, either because they fear that separate will never truly be equal in practice, or because they believe that committed homosexual relationships deserve the same social cache as heterosexual ones.
Where do you stand on this issue? I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I think that civil unions for homosexuals with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage are a huge step in the right direction. Moreover, surveys consistently show that the majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions - but not "marriage" - on the grounds of fairness and equal rights. I think that clamoring for the right to use the term "marriage," which has weighty connotations in our abnormally religious Western nation, only serves to erode that sympathy and spur conservative hotheads to attempt amendment of state Constitutions.
I think we should take civil unions and run with them. The average citizen will eventually become accustomed to the reality of legally recognized homosexual couples who show themselves to be good neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family. Except for the serious fundies, most US religions are gradually growing more tolerant of homosexuality (and women's rights) as they are populated by more modern minds. Ultimately it will also seem natural to extend the secular institution of marriage to those who have enjoyed its benefits for years in all but name. By losing this battle now, I believe that we can eventually win the war.
Finally, as an aside for anyone who wants hard evidence that homosexuality is "natural" in the sense of not being a uniquely human phenomenon, check out this current exhibition at the University of Oslo or read this book by Bruce Bagemihl.
Naturally reactions differ. Some conservative groups are outraged that gay couples are being dignified with the same rights as heterosexual ones, which apparently poses some kind of threat to procreation. Some gay rights activists are unwilling to settle for civil union rather than marriage, either because they fear that separate will never truly be equal in practice, or because they believe that committed homosexual relationships deserve the same social cache as heterosexual ones.
Where do you stand on this issue? I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I think that civil unions for homosexuals with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage are a huge step in the right direction. Moreover, surveys consistently show that the majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions - but not "marriage" - on the grounds of fairness and equal rights. I think that clamoring for the right to use the term "marriage," which has weighty connotations in our abnormally religious Western nation, only serves to erode that sympathy and spur conservative hotheads to attempt amendment of state Constitutions.
I think we should take civil unions and run with them. The average citizen will eventually become accustomed to the reality of legally recognized homosexual couples who show themselves to be good neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family. Except for the serious fundies, most US religions are gradually growing more tolerant of homosexuality (and women's rights) as they are populated by more modern minds. Ultimately it will also seem natural to extend the secular institution of marriage to those who have enjoyed its benefits for years in all but name. By losing this battle now, I believe that we can eventually win the war.
Finally, as an aside for anyone who wants hard evidence that homosexuality is "natural" in the sense of not being a uniquely human phenomenon, check out this current exhibition at the University of Oslo or read this book by Bruce Bagemihl.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Fantasy Congress
Four students at Claremont McKenna have created a new online gaming site for those of us who glaze over at the mention of sports scores but check the progress of beloved bills at Congressional records sites for fun. It's Fantasy Congress!
Points are scored every time a real life member of Congress introduces a bill or gets it past one of the many hurdles on the way to becoming a law. Choose a line-up of ranking and rookie Representatives, starter and senior Senators - and watch them orate, negotiate, bluff, and filibuster their way to glorious victory or ignominious defeat!
Will you enlist the real-life representatives of the state(s) dearest to your heart to monitor their progress? Or select the individual members of Congress who most closely align with your own political views?
Or, realizing that die-hard progressives score very few points when the Republicans control both houses, will you either 1) betray your ideals completely by choosing an intimidating lineup from the majority party (justified to outraged loved ones as keeping your enemies closer) or 2) draft a line-up of moderate go-getters who may not represent your interests faithfully but sure know how to get post offices renamed for popular celebrities?
Happily, you don't have to choose - you can draft several teams and compete in multiple leagues. The real life Congress may be in recess, but the Fantasy Congress is now in session. Let the games begin!
Points are scored every time a real life member of Congress introduces a bill or gets it past one of the many hurdles on the way to becoming a law. Choose a line-up of ranking and rookie Representatives, starter and senior Senators - and watch them orate, negotiate, bluff, and filibuster their way to glorious victory or ignominious defeat!
Will you enlist the real-life representatives of the state(s) dearest to your heart to monitor their progress? Or select the individual members of Congress who most closely align with your own political views?
Or, realizing that die-hard progressives score very few points when the Republicans control both houses, will you either 1) betray your ideals completely by choosing an intimidating lineup from the majority party (justified to outraged loved ones as keeping your enemies closer) or 2) draft a line-up of moderate go-getters who may not represent your interests faithfully but sure know how to get post offices renamed for popular celebrities?
Happily, you don't have to choose - you can draft several teams and compete in multiple leagues. The real life Congress may be in recess, but the Fantasy Congress is now in session. Let the games begin!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Vote by mail - leave a paper trail!
In a recent NY Times article on a growing trend towards absentee voting, John Broder focused on the woes of campaign managers who could no longer time a blitz of last-minute advertisements to reach voters just before Election Day. However, he omitted mention of two major reasons that Democrats and progressives are increasingly choosing to vote by mail.
The first is paranoia, justified or not, regarding the accuracy and security of electronic voting machines being manufactured by companies with ties to the Republican party. Votes by mail could still be stolen, but it would take more work, and a paper trail would exist at least transiently. Poor and minority voters who experienced or heard reports of long lines and harrassment at the polls in the 2004 election also have a compelling reason to cast their ballots by mail.
For these reasons, King County officials in Washington State have been campaigning aggressively for citizens to register to vote by mail in this year's election and plan to switch eventually to a mail-only system: http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/votebymail/
The deadline for King County is today, October 23. What about in your county? Register now!
The first is paranoia, justified or not, regarding the accuracy and security of electronic voting machines being manufactured by companies with ties to the Republican party. Votes by mail could still be stolen, but it would take more work, and a paper trail would exist at least transiently. Poor and minority voters who experienced or heard reports of long lines and harrassment at the polls in the 2004 election also have a compelling reason to cast their ballots by mail.
For these reasons, King County officials in Washington State have been campaigning aggressively for citizens to register to vote by mail in this year's election and plan to switch eventually to a mail-only system: http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/votebymail/
The deadline for King County is today, October 23. What about in your county? Register now!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Globetrotting
I probably won't have a chance to update this blog until Sept 20. Look for more rage against the machine when I return!
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Supersize Global Warming Today!
Check out much funnier responses to the current McDonald's toy Hummer Happy Meal giveaway or make your own at Ronald McHummer!
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Respectfully from Beirut
The letter and pictures below were sent to our departmental mailing list yesterday. I have permission from the author to reproduce them here.
Dearest Family, Friends, and Colleagues,
I apologize for the mass email, but I wanted you all to see the pictures I took yesterday in southern Lebanon. I would attach more pictures to help you all understand the extremely disgusting nature of this war, but internet service here in Beirut is quite slow do to the conflict.
I am sending this email because I am very disturbed by Israel's claim to have destroyed the infrastructures that will stop the movement of arms and claim to have destroyed buildings that harbored arms. After touring the regions most heavily hit, I can attest to the fact that NONE of this is true. In reality, Israel only hit the major roads used by civilians and not the minor roads which are used by Hezbollah. Further, the only only movement and traffic that was hindered was the civilians, the Red Cross, and the World Food Program. Regarding "buried arms and munitions," it is absolutely ASININE to assert that apartments, mosques, and houses contained Katusha rockets. Please remember, these are not unreasonable people, these are instead people who have known peace for over 10 years now. It is almost certain that the stores of rockets are buried in the hills and in bunkers removed from their families. Yet Israel proceed to bomb, destroy, and level over 15,000 buildings. Of the hundreds upon hundreds of destroyed buildings that I have inspected over the previous several days, I have not seen any evidence of arms or munitions. Why would members of Hezbollah store Katusha rockets in the same house as wives, parents, and children? Who in their right mind keeps a rocket in the same house as their child?
In case you were not aware, our government and our elected representatives all voted to support these actions and also to supply the munitions used in these attacks. In other words, your tax dollars paid for this destruction and war on Lebanese civilians.
I beg each of you spend a moment to look at these pictures and try to understand the hell that war reaps on ordinary civilians.
This first picture is of the Damour bridge crossing a river – this is one of the most heavily used bridges in all of Lebanon, is 10 km south of Beirut, and provides the major connection between Beirut and the south.
The second set of two pictures are from Qana. The first is of the building that was struck by 3 rockets from an Apache helicopter, and the second is of the mass grave that created to bury the 28 woman and children who died in the attack (all the casualties were civilians). Since this burial is the major news today from Lebanon, so perhaps if you watch tonight's news you may see similar pictures.
Lastly, I want to reiterate that OUR government and nearly all of OUR elected representatives (410 in favor vs. 8 against in the House and unanimous in the Senate) supported and paid for the destruction of residential buildings and civilian infrastructures. How is destroying residential property and civilian infrastructures in another country self defense?
Thank you for spending the time to comprehend the disgusting acts that our government paid for and supported.
Respectfully from Beirut,
Andrew Van Eck
Dearest Family, Friends, and Colleagues,
I apologize for the mass email, but I wanted you all to see the pictures I took yesterday in southern Lebanon. I would attach more pictures to help you all understand the extremely disgusting nature of this war, but internet service here in Beirut is quite slow do to the conflict.
I am sending this email because I am very disturbed by Israel's claim to have destroyed the infrastructures that will stop the movement of arms and claim to have destroyed buildings that harbored arms. After touring the regions most heavily hit, I can attest to the fact that NONE of this is true. In reality, Israel only hit the major roads used by civilians and not the minor roads which are used by Hezbollah. Further, the only only movement and traffic that was hindered was the civilians, the Red Cross, and the World Food Program. Regarding "buried arms and munitions," it is absolutely ASININE to assert that apartments, mosques, and houses contained Katusha rockets. Please remember, these are not unreasonable people, these are instead people who have known peace for over 10 years now. It is almost certain that the stores of rockets are buried in the hills and in bunkers removed from their families. Yet Israel proceed to bomb, destroy, and level over 15,000 buildings. Of the hundreds upon hundreds of destroyed buildings that I have inspected over the previous several days, I have not seen any evidence of arms or munitions. Why would members of Hezbollah store Katusha rockets in the same house as wives, parents, and children? Who in their right mind keeps a rocket in the same house as their child?
In case you were not aware, our government and our elected representatives all voted to support these actions and also to supply the munitions used in these attacks. In other words, your tax dollars paid for this destruction and war on Lebanese civilians.
I beg each of you spend a moment to look at these pictures and try to understand the hell that war reaps on ordinary civilians.
This first picture is of the Damour bridge crossing a river – this is one of the most heavily used bridges in all of Lebanon, is 10 km south of Beirut, and provides the major connection between Beirut and the south.
The second set of two pictures are from Qana. The first is of the building that was struck by 3 rockets from an Apache helicopter, and the second is of the mass grave that created to bury the 28 woman and children who died in the attack (all the casualties were civilians). Since this burial is the major news today from Lebanon, so perhaps if you watch tonight's news you may see similar pictures.
Lastly, I want to reiterate that OUR government and nearly all of OUR elected representatives (410 in favor vs. 8 against in the House and unanimous in the Senate) supported and paid for the destruction of residential buildings and civilian infrastructures. How is destroying residential property and civilian infrastructures in another country self defense?
Thank you for spending the time to comprehend the disgusting acts that our government paid for and supported.
Respectfully from Beirut,
Andrew Van Eck
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Bush Gets His Ears Boxed
US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is the first federal judge to rule the government's warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional. She has ordered an immediate halt to the program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers. (The Justice Department is appealing Taylor's ruling because it believes that it must continue to infringe on American civil liberties in order to protect our freedom. Or something like that.)
On the other hand, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over the NSA's massive data mining of phone records, saying that not enough had yet been publicly revealed about that program and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets. This suggests to me that the Judge was more het up about the Bush administration's sneaky bypass of the judicial branch (in the form of their special surveillance court) than about violations of our citizens' right to privacy per se.
Bottom line: Bush is listening... Use big words!
On the other hand, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over the NSA's massive data mining of phone records, saying that not enough had yet been publicly revealed about that program and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets. This suggests to me that the Judge was more het up about the Bush administration's sneaky bypass of the judicial branch (in the form of their special surveillance court) than about violations of our citizens' right to privacy per se.
Bottom line: Bush is listening... Use big words!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
A Man, a plan, Iran - Lebanon!
Seymour Hirsch has an excellent piece in the New Yorker about the Bush administration's reluctance to rein in Israel and prevent hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties. In it he confirms that the Israelis had planned a major offensive against Hezbollah months ago and were simply waiting for an opportune provocation to strike. For their part, Cheney and co. were eager to witness Israeli success because they hoped to use it as a blueprint for a future invasion of Iran, should one become necessary. Given that Iran is supposed to give up its nuclear enrichment program by the end of this month, there was no time to lose if such lessons were to be learned. But the debatable military success (and clear political failure) of the Israeli attacks leaves the outcome of such an operation against Iran ambiguous at best. Perhaps the only gain, and that one somewhat dubious, was the monthlong distraction from the heaviest casualties yet witnessed in our own military-political debacle, the Iraq war.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Forecast: Continual State of Emergency
The House recently passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act, HR 5122, that would amend Title 10 of the United States Code to give the President the authority to take control of the National Guard in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and possessions, or Puerto Rico" without gubernatorial consent.
Why should we worry? As stated explicitly by an oppositional letter from the National Association of Governors to House leaders last week, this provision is very open-ended without a definition of what constitutes a "serious" natural or manmade disaster. What's to stop this President (or any other, but I have reason to fear this one specifically) from using any handy excuse to deploy our own National Guard against a dissenting state, organization, or individual citizen? If we can engage in an eternal war on terror under this administration, surely we can also fall prey to an ongoing national state of emergency.
The clock is ticking! The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act must be reconciled in conference with the version already passed by the Senate. Call your Senators immediately and warn them not to allow this dangerous President any more "emergency" powers!
Why should we worry? As stated explicitly by an oppositional letter from the National Association of Governors to House leaders last week, this provision is very open-ended without a definition of what constitutes a "serious" natural or manmade disaster. What's to stop this President (or any other, but I have reason to fear this one specifically) from using any handy excuse to deploy our own National Guard against a dissenting state, organization, or individual citizen? If we can engage in an eternal war on terror under this administration, surely we can also fall prey to an ongoing national state of emergency.
The clock is ticking! The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act must be reconciled in conference with the version already passed by the Senate. Call your Senators immediately and warn them not to allow this dangerous President any more "emergency" powers!
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Genie's Tips on Teaching Evolution
Dr. Eugenie Scott directs the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. In a recent talk at PNU, Dr. Scott offered current and future biology faculty important tips on teaching evolution, especially to students who come in with misconceptions about what evolutionary theory is and whether it poses a threat to their religious faith. I will do my best to reproduce these tips here, with the caveats that 1) all credit is due to her and 2) any inaccuracies are my own fault.
Genie's Approximately Ten Top Ways to Teach Evolution Better
1. Convey the idea that evolution is a core scientific concept, repeatedly tested over many decades and found to be both reliable and fundamental. Its basic premise, that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor, is universally accepted by biologists. The fine details, those persisting gaps in knowledge most commonly attacked by anti-evolutionists, belong properly to the frontiers of science, where models and explanations are actively being tested and are still subject to major changes.
2. Recognize that evolution can be discussed in terms of A) the major concept (organisms change through time and descend from common ancestors), B) pattern (ordering organisms in terms of how closely they are related, i.e., how long ago they last shared a common ancestor), or C) mechanism (the exact genetic changes responsible for observed differences over time). Opponents of evolution often conflate these, acting as though uncertainty as to mechanistic details of a specific case or the precise relationship between a particular set of organisms deals a huge blow to the basic concept.
3. Realize that scientists and laypersons use a number of common terms with very different connotations. A scientific fact is an observation, repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. A body of these facts can be summarized as a law, a descriptive generalization of behavior under stated circumstances. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of these generalized observations. Repeated testing of a hypothesis can confirm it as a scientific theory - a well-substantiated explanation of facts, laws, and so forth. So evolution is not "just" a theory - its status as a theory makes it superior in scientific parlance to any of the other terms defined above.
4. Don't conflate methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Science is limited by definition to explaining the natural world via natural processes. We can only test material forces using scientific methods, and we do this by holding some factors constant and varying others. However, this does not necessarily mean that this material world is all there is. We are capable neither of constraining nor of manipulating supernatural forces. God *could* be involved in natural processes, but we cannot control Her actions, and therefore we have nothing to say about what role She might be playing.
5. Know that scientists and laypersons talk about causation in very different ways as well. We can generally agree on proximate (directly observable) causes - for example, that New Orleans was destroyed by a hurricane. However, while laypersons might proceed to deeper causes such as inadequate building codes, and finally to non-material ultimate causes, such as punishment of a city for its sins, scientists cannot. Our secondary causes are inferred explanations for observed phenomena, and our ultimate causes are still material. The possibility for non-material causation exists, but it lies outside the realm of science, see #4.
6. Be able to explain that evolution is not unique to biology. Its basic concept of change through time applies to all of science, from the birth and death of galaxies to continental drift to the radiation of Romance languages from common Latin roots. It is only opposed so violently in the area of biology because it threatens the comforting idea that humans are different from all other animals, specially created by God in His image.
7. Know what evolution is NOT.
A) It is not an explanation for the origin of life, the spontaneous self-organization of organic molecules into complex systems. This is a very interesting field, but quite distinct and still largely speculative.
B) It is not equivalent to "Darwinism", that bogeyman of anti-evolutionists who present it as an evil atheistic ideology (helped along by certain scientists who confuse their own lack of belief with conclusions capable of being drawn froms scientific observations and methods).
C) It is not "chance" or a completely random process with an infinitesimal probability of success. Evolutionary adaptation is due to the force of natural selection - that is, the differential success of random variation results in some characteristics becoming more prevalent in a population over time. Even complicated organs like the eye can be generated by incremental steps, each successive version an improvement over the last.
8. Be able to clarify the difference between the outmoded "great chain of being" and evolution. Although we commonly speak of modern day organisms as "primitive" or "advanced," they are all the SAME distance from their last common ancestor! All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from a fish-like ancestor that crawled onto land, so we should not expect to find evidence that, say, modern reptiles are intermediate between ourselves and fish.
9. Understand how evolutionary history determines future as well as present. Terrestrial vertebrates have four legs because we descended from fish-like marine ancestors with two pairs of fins. We will never sprout a pair of wings from our backs like Pegasus - we can only convert one pair of limbs to wings as birds and bats did independently.
Well, that was only nine, but Dr. Scott didn't have time for more because she had to dash to the airport right after the Q & A. If I could sum up her message in one phrase, it would be, "Information - not indoctrination." Given a few more words, I would add that our goal should be to produce a scientifically literate populace as well as future scientists. We should recognize the need to set standards for basic science education over individuals' objections - but also to find ways to teach controversial topics without making kids from different belief systems feel excluded or belittled.
Genie's Approximately Ten Top Ways to Teach Evolution Better
1. Convey the idea that evolution is a core scientific concept, repeatedly tested over many decades and found to be both reliable and fundamental. Its basic premise, that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor, is universally accepted by biologists. The fine details, those persisting gaps in knowledge most commonly attacked by anti-evolutionists, belong properly to the frontiers of science, where models and explanations are actively being tested and are still subject to major changes.
2. Recognize that evolution can be discussed in terms of A) the major concept (organisms change through time and descend from common ancestors), B) pattern (ordering organisms in terms of how closely they are related, i.e., how long ago they last shared a common ancestor), or C) mechanism (the exact genetic changes responsible for observed differences over time). Opponents of evolution often conflate these, acting as though uncertainty as to mechanistic details of a specific case or the precise relationship between a particular set of organisms deals a huge blow to the basic concept.
3. Realize that scientists and laypersons use a number of common terms with very different connotations. A scientific fact is an observation, repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. A body of these facts can be summarized as a law, a descriptive generalization of behavior under stated circumstances. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of these generalized observations. Repeated testing of a hypothesis can confirm it as a scientific theory - a well-substantiated explanation of facts, laws, and so forth. So evolution is not "just" a theory - its status as a theory makes it superior in scientific parlance to any of the other terms defined above.
4. Don't conflate methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Science is limited by definition to explaining the natural world via natural processes. We can only test material forces using scientific methods, and we do this by holding some factors constant and varying others. However, this does not necessarily mean that this material world is all there is. We are capable neither of constraining nor of manipulating supernatural forces. God *could* be involved in natural processes, but we cannot control Her actions, and therefore we have nothing to say about what role She might be playing.
5. Know that scientists and laypersons talk about causation in very different ways as well. We can generally agree on proximate (directly observable) causes - for example, that New Orleans was destroyed by a hurricane. However, while laypersons might proceed to deeper causes such as inadequate building codes, and finally to non-material ultimate causes, such as punishment of a city for its sins, scientists cannot. Our secondary causes are inferred explanations for observed phenomena, and our ultimate causes are still material. The possibility for non-material causation exists, but it lies outside the realm of science, see #4.
6. Be able to explain that evolution is not unique to biology. Its basic concept of change through time applies to all of science, from the birth and death of galaxies to continental drift to the radiation of Romance languages from common Latin roots. It is only opposed so violently in the area of biology because it threatens the comforting idea that humans are different from all other animals, specially created by God in His image.
7. Know what evolution is NOT.
A) It is not an explanation for the origin of life, the spontaneous self-organization of organic molecules into complex systems. This is a very interesting field, but quite distinct and still largely speculative.
B) It is not equivalent to "Darwinism", that bogeyman of anti-evolutionists who present it as an evil atheistic ideology (helped along by certain scientists who confuse their own lack of belief with conclusions capable of being drawn froms scientific observations and methods).
C) It is not "chance" or a completely random process with an infinitesimal probability of success. Evolutionary adaptation is due to the force of natural selection - that is, the differential success of random variation results in some characteristics becoming more prevalent in a population over time. Even complicated organs like the eye can be generated by incremental steps, each successive version an improvement over the last.
8. Be able to clarify the difference between the outmoded "great chain of being" and evolution. Although we commonly speak of modern day organisms as "primitive" or "advanced," they are all the SAME distance from their last common ancestor! All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from a fish-like ancestor that crawled onto land, so we should not expect to find evidence that, say, modern reptiles are intermediate between ourselves and fish.
9. Understand how evolutionary history determines future as well as present. Terrestrial vertebrates have four legs because we descended from fish-like marine ancestors with two pairs of fins. We will never sprout a pair of wings from our backs like Pegasus - we can only convert one pair of limbs to wings as birds and bats did independently.
Well, that was only nine, but Dr. Scott didn't have time for more because she had to dash to the airport right after the Q & A. If I could sum up her message in one phrase, it would be, "Information - not indoctrination." Given a few more words, I would add that our goal should be to produce a scientifically literate populace as well as future scientists. We should recognize the need to set standards for basic science education over individuals' objections - but also to find ways to teach controversial topics without making kids from different belief systems feel excluded or belittled.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Running on Empty
What does it take for the world's largest oil consumer to rethink its gas-guzzling ways? Global warming? A war in Iraq? The perceived necessity of drilling in pristine Arctic wilderness or of maintaining good relations with tyrranical leaders who control the oil supply? Nope, only voter indignation at the price we're currently being asked to pay at the pump. Suddenly the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to present us with short-term solutions like the now-infamous $100 gasoline rebate without doing much at all to address this problem in the long term.
And the Democrats have no reason for pride on this score either. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced a bill called the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act way back in September 2005. But thus far, only two Senators, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), have been willing to co-sponsor S.1648, which would mandate dramatic improvements in automobile fuel efficiency. This is a bill that the whole party should get behind while the issue has momentum and visibility.
And let's have no more talk of decreasing the gas tax, or distributing gas rebates, or increasing the domestic supply by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If it takes high gas prices to get our attention - if only short-term financial pain can alert us to the less tangible costs of our oil addiction in climate change, health, and national security - then the current crisis could be the answer to our prayers. Let's use this opportunity to create real changes in U.S. energy policy that will better serve our nation and the world.
The substance of S.1648 is summarized on the Library of Congress' legislative information website THOMAS as follows:
Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act of 2005
Amends federal transportation law to phase in an increase in average fuel economy standards: (1) from 25 miles per gallon for passenger automobiles manufactured between model years 1984 and 2008 to 40 miles per gallon for those manufactured after model year 2016; and (2) from 17 miles per gallon for non-passenger automobiles manufactured between model years 1984 and 2008 to 27.5 miles per gallon for those manufactured after model year 2016. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe such standards for non-passenger automobiles at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year after model year 2017.
Revises the definitions of automobile and passenger automobile, increasing the weight standards and seating capacity.
Increases the civil penalties for violations of fuel economy standards.
Requires the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) report biennially to Congress on the quality of the automobile fuel economy testing for all currently available automobile technologies; and (2) provide for the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to study what practicable automobile fuel economy testing process provides the most accurate measures of actual automobile fuel economy in highway use, in urban use, and in combined highway and in urban use.
Directs the Secretary to prescribe: (1) a revised testing procedure for accurately measuring the actual automobile fuel economy of each automobile model, based on the latter study; and (2) amended average fuel economy standards taking into account improved accuracy in their calculation resulting from use of such procedure.
Revises requirements for the fleet average fuel economy standards for U.S. executive agency automobiles, both passenger and non-passenger.
Directs the President to prescribe regulations that require a specified minimum number of exceptionally fuel-efficient vehicles leased or bought by U.S. executive agencies.
And the Democrats have no reason for pride on this score either. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced a bill called the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act way back in September 2005. But thus far, only two Senators, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), have been willing to co-sponsor S.1648, which would mandate dramatic improvements in automobile fuel efficiency. This is a bill that the whole party should get behind while the issue has momentum and visibility.
And let's have no more talk of decreasing the gas tax, or distributing gas rebates, or increasing the domestic supply by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If it takes high gas prices to get our attention - if only short-term financial pain can alert us to the less tangible costs of our oil addiction in climate change, health, and national security - then the current crisis could be the answer to our prayers. Let's use this opportunity to create real changes in U.S. energy policy that will better serve our nation and the world.
The substance of S.1648 is summarized on the Library of Congress' legislative information website THOMAS as follows:
Automobile Fuel Efficiency Improvements Act of 2005
Amends federal transportation law to phase in an increase in average fuel economy standards: (1) from 25 miles per gallon for passenger automobiles manufactured between model years 1984 and 2008 to 40 miles per gallon for those manufactured after model year 2016; and (2) from 17 miles per gallon for non-passenger automobiles manufactured between model years 1984 and 2008 to 27.5 miles per gallon for those manufactured after model year 2016. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe such standards for non-passenger automobiles at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year after model year 2017.
Revises the definitions of automobile and passenger automobile, increasing the weight standards and seating capacity.
Increases the civil penalties for violations of fuel economy standards.
Requires the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) report biennially to Congress on the quality of the automobile fuel economy testing for all currently available automobile technologies; and (2) provide for the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to study what practicable automobile fuel economy testing process provides the most accurate measures of actual automobile fuel economy in highway use, in urban use, and in combined highway and in urban use.
Directs the Secretary to prescribe: (1) a revised testing procedure for accurately measuring the actual automobile fuel economy of each automobile model, based on the latter study; and (2) amended average fuel economy standards taking into account improved accuracy in their calculation resulting from use of such procedure.
Revises requirements for the fleet average fuel economy standards for U.S. executive agency automobiles, both passenger and non-passenger.
Directs the President to prescribe regulations that require a specified minimum number of exceptionally fuel-efficient vehicles leased or bought by U.S. executive agencies.
Straight from the Gut
If you haven't yet heard or read Stephen Colbert's recent address at the White House Correspondents Association annual dinner, go to Democracy Now. I mean right now.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Paying Our Dues
I finally filed my income tax returns and coughed up an additional $75 to the IRS, having learned that a single person living alone with a cat does not qualify as "head of household." At least my humble income still allows me to take advantage of the free tax preparation software linked to the IRS website - I tried H&R Block this year and found it very user-friendly.
In honor of the looming deadline, I highly recommend the following book: David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal, subtitled "The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everyone Else." In fact, Amazon currently offers it at a bargain price of under $5, so there's no excuse, even if you're not getting a refund.
It's been a year since I read it, but I still get hot under the collar when recalling this book. Johnston describes in shocking detail exactly how the legal loopholes built into our supposedly progressive tax system allow the wealthiest Americans to shift their tax burden onto the middle and lower classes. Even worse, he explains how underfunding and political pressure force the IRS to expend their limited energy checking up on honest (if sometimes financially challenged) citizens while letting the big tax cheats go scot free. In fact, you have a far greater risk of being audited if you request the earned income tax credit (for low income families) than if you're a multi-millionaire.
So as you burn the midnight oil trying to determine whether you exceed the standard deduction, and whether the AMT is going to bite you in the ass, pat yourself on the back for paying your dues to your country. You're a patriot where it counts - your wallet.
In honor of the looming deadline, I highly recommend the following book: David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal, subtitled "The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everyone Else." In fact, Amazon currently offers it at a bargain price of under $5, so there's no excuse, even if you're not getting a refund.
It's been a year since I read it, but I still get hot under the collar when recalling this book. Johnston describes in shocking detail exactly how the legal loopholes built into our supposedly progressive tax system allow the wealthiest Americans to shift their tax burden onto the middle and lower classes. Even worse, he explains how underfunding and political pressure force the IRS to expend their limited energy checking up on honest (if sometimes financially challenged) citizens while letting the big tax cheats go scot free. In fact, you have a far greater risk of being audited if you request the earned income tax credit (for low income families) than if you're a multi-millionaire.
So as you burn the midnight oil trying to determine whether you exceed the standard deduction, and whether the AMT is going to bite you in the ass, pat yourself on the back for paying your dues to your country. You're a patriot where it counts - your wallet.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science
A few months ago, this article in PLoS by Dr. Peter Lawrence caught my eye. Its thesis, essentially, is that we should not expect equal numbers of men and women to pursue successful scientific careers because the two genders are in fact, contrary to idealistic belief, different. But before we rise up in indignation to give old Dr. Lawrence the Summers treatment, let's look a little more closely at what he has to say.
The "ghosts" to which the title alludes are "wayward beliefs and delusions" such as "the dogma that all groups of people, such as men and women, are on average the same, and any genetic distinctions must not be countenanced." Dr. Lawrence dares to argue that "boys and girls are different and remain so," and he cites Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen's recent article interpreting autism as an excessively "male" brain - good at systematizing and focusing narrowly, poor at empathy and communication - as well as a number of earlier studies. Although the qualities Dr. Lawrence discusses apply to male and female populations on average, not to every individual within those populations, he is very clear in his views that women are generally less ruthless, competitive, and self-aggrandizing, and thus tend to fare worse in the struggle to survive in science today.
But far from asserting that these differences make women poorer scientists, Dr. Lawrence attacks the scientific establishment for selecting for "male" qualities that have nothing to do with good science and in fact are likely to hinder it. Gone are the days when a socially inept male commanding a subfield of arcane natural history knowledge could function as an ideal researcher. We are now in an age of "big science" in which leadership and teamwork have become critical for productivity, and it is high time that we gave greater appreciation in the selection process to "feminine" virtues like understanding others and helping them to develop their diverse abilities. According to Dr. Lawrence, this sea change in the current discriminatory scientific selection process would lead to more women in science and to better science.
While applauding the spirit of this rallying cry, I would like to point out a couple of concerns. First, I have no doubt that male and female brains, on average, are different at birth due to genetic differences and/or hormonal millieu. However, I do think that we need to be very cautious about predicting the extent to which those initial differences might determine gender-biased behaviors later in life. For example, even if, on average, little boys begin with better spatial skills and little girls with greater empathy and verbal skills, these initial differences could reinforced and amplified for any of a number of reasons: 1) they are more motivated to practice skills they are good at, 2) their primary playmates will probably be of the same gender and thus prefer to practice those same skills in play, and/or 3) even if their parents are vigilant about discouraging gender stereotypes in the home, they will be bombarded by media and societal messages informing them that boys are supposed to like computers and cars while girls like to play house and hairdresser.
Second, in my opinion, the main omission in Dr. Lawrence's analysis is that he fails to take seriously the socioeconomic biases against women pursuing any highly demanding career, particularly one involving the long hours and relatively poor pay of academic science. The fact is that many women, even highly intelligent and ambitious ones, would like to have families, and no matter how starry-eyed they are on beginning graduate school, they soon realize from observing the few senior women in their departments that very little support exists for that. They certainly can't afford to pay for childcare in their graduate or postdoctoral years unless they are independently wealthy or married to someone who can shoulder the large majority of the financial burden. They will be struggling to land an assistant professorship and/or achieve tenure - hardly the preferred time in their careers for sleepless nights and frequent illness - during their best child-bearing years. And although Dr. Lawrence blithely states that "after about six months or so, there is no reason, in principle, why the main carer of the children should not be the father," in practice this is extremely rare among even the most enlightened couples.
So if we want to increase the retention of women in science in order to take advantage of more feminine leadership skills, create more supportive working environments, and provide role models for future Frances Cricks, it will not be enough to select for originality and insight over aggression and self-promotion. We need to recognize that the same feminine qualities that would make particular women (and men) nurturing mentors are also likely to make them good parents - and that we can and should take concrete steps to support their desires to be both. More affordable childcare options (preferably on-site at universities and research institutions) and more flexible working hours and tenure clocks would be a huge step in the right direction.
The "ghosts" to which the title alludes are "wayward beliefs and delusions" such as "the dogma that all groups of people, such as men and women, are on average the same, and any genetic distinctions must not be countenanced." Dr. Lawrence dares to argue that "boys and girls are different and remain so," and he cites Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen's recent article interpreting autism as an excessively "male" brain - good at systematizing and focusing narrowly, poor at empathy and communication - as well as a number of earlier studies. Although the qualities Dr. Lawrence discusses apply to male and female populations on average, not to every individual within those populations, he is very clear in his views that women are generally less ruthless, competitive, and self-aggrandizing, and thus tend to fare worse in the struggle to survive in science today.
But far from asserting that these differences make women poorer scientists, Dr. Lawrence attacks the scientific establishment for selecting for "male" qualities that have nothing to do with good science and in fact are likely to hinder it. Gone are the days when a socially inept male commanding a subfield of arcane natural history knowledge could function as an ideal researcher. We are now in an age of "big science" in which leadership and teamwork have become critical for productivity, and it is high time that we gave greater appreciation in the selection process to "feminine" virtues like understanding others and helping them to develop their diverse abilities. According to Dr. Lawrence, this sea change in the current discriminatory scientific selection process would lead to more women in science and to better science.
While applauding the spirit of this rallying cry, I would like to point out a couple of concerns. First, I have no doubt that male and female brains, on average, are different at birth due to genetic differences and/or hormonal millieu. However, I do think that we need to be very cautious about predicting the extent to which those initial differences might determine gender-biased behaviors later in life. For example, even if, on average, little boys begin with better spatial skills and little girls with greater empathy and verbal skills, these initial differences could reinforced and amplified for any of a number of reasons: 1) they are more motivated to practice skills they are good at, 2) their primary playmates will probably be of the same gender and thus prefer to practice those same skills in play, and/or 3) even if their parents are vigilant about discouraging gender stereotypes in the home, they will be bombarded by media and societal messages informing them that boys are supposed to like computers and cars while girls like to play house and hairdresser.
Second, in my opinion, the main omission in Dr. Lawrence's analysis is that he fails to take seriously the socioeconomic biases against women pursuing any highly demanding career, particularly one involving the long hours and relatively poor pay of academic science. The fact is that many women, even highly intelligent and ambitious ones, would like to have families, and no matter how starry-eyed they are on beginning graduate school, they soon realize from observing the few senior women in their departments that very little support exists for that. They certainly can't afford to pay for childcare in their graduate or postdoctoral years unless they are independently wealthy or married to someone who can shoulder the large majority of the financial burden. They will be struggling to land an assistant professorship and/or achieve tenure - hardly the preferred time in their careers for sleepless nights and frequent illness - during their best child-bearing years. And although Dr. Lawrence blithely states that "after about six months or so, there is no reason, in principle, why the main carer of the children should not be the father," in practice this is extremely rare among even the most enlightened couples.
So if we want to increase the retention of women in science in order to take advantage of more feminine leadership skills, create more supportive working environments, and provide role models for future Frances Cricks, it will not be enough to select for originality and insight over aggression and self-promotion. We need to recognize that the same feminine qualities that would make particular women (and men) nurturing mentors are also likely to make them good parents - and that we can and should take concrete steps to support their desires to be both. More affordable childcare options (preferably on-site at universities and research institutions) and more flexible working hours and tenure clocks would be a huge step in the right direction.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Postdoctoral Affairs
Although I had planned to keep my personal life out of this blog for the most part, this morning I received the second of two unpleasant surprises fit for a post on the problem of postdocs.
I'll start at the beginning. When I began postdoctoral research at Pseudonymous Northwest University, my advisor's grant was paying my salary (at the NIH recommended minimum) and benefits. These included a pretty good healthcare plan as well as a nice employer-matched retirement program, both standard for faculty at PNU. However, like any good postdoc, I began applying for outside fellowships as soon as possible. Getting one would not only bring prestige to myself, my advisor, and PNU, it would also free up funds from my advisor's grant so that he could hire additional hands in the lab.
I was lucky enough to be awarded a coveted fellowship by a cancer research foundation, a feat apparently deserving of a brief congratulatory announcement in the PNU Weekly. This fellowship not only provided for a substantial raise in salary from the standard pittance received by starting postdocs, it also came with a $2000 annual allowance for educational expenses. Things were really looking up. I was hopeful that I might even be able to recoup my relocation expenses by the end of my first year.
A couple of months after beginning support on my new fellowship, I went to a conference on the East Coast to present my research in progress. My advisor encouraged me to go, saying that I could use my educational allowance to pay for my trip. Unfortunately, when I returned and sought reimbursement, the payroll office informed me that the money in question had already been put towards my benefits. To his dubious credit, my administratively challenged advisor was as surprised to be reminded of this as I was to learn of it. He instructed me to ask the department for travel funds, but on finding that none had been allocated for postdoctoral (as opposed to grad student or faculty) travel, he eventually agreed to cough up the funds himself.
That was Unpleasant Postdoc Surprise #1.
This morning I was talking to our lab manager about IRAs, having stayed up far too late the night before struggling with my income tax returns. At one point, she suggested that I check exactly what kind of employer-matched retirement fund I had so that we could compare. Imagine how I felt when I logged into my employee account and discovered that I NO LONGER HAD ONE.
It took an irate call to the PNU Benefits Office to ascertain that I had been reclassified from "research associate" to "research associate trainee" when my fellowship support commenced in August of last year. That made me immediately INELIGIBLE for my faculty retirement plan. Some great reward for my success in securing outside funding! Same person, same skills, same job, that blurb, and yet... less love. And no one had even bothered to inform me!
That was Unpleasant Postdoc Surprise #2.
Am I alone in my experiences? Hardly. At noon today I complained to a room of 15 postdocs from departments scattered throughout PNU and was informed that at least three others had suffered similar incidents. The fact is, it's all too easy for postdocs to fall between the cracks. Although we form a huge fraction of the experimental enterprise, especially at top tier research institutions like PNU, university administrators don't seem to know what to make of us. We're not exactly students, or staff, or faculty, or well-organized or represented. That results in extreme heterogeneity of title, salary, benefits, and access to resources. Until very recently, PNU didn't even know how many of us there were, much less how to contact us or assist us. We were left entirely to the mercy of our research mentors (and the extremely generous interpretation of Howard Hughes "graduate" training program funds by a sympathetic faculty member) for training and support.
Hopefully this situation will improve as recognition of postdocs' plight spreads. According to the National Postdoctoral Association, over 100 US universities and research institutions have established their own Postdoctoral Associations and/or Offices of Postdoctoral Affairs. Major areas of advocacy include equitable pay and benefits, funded opportunities for professional development, and tracking of training experiences and outcomes.
One major NPA recommendation, as it happens, is to "increase the percentage of postdoctoral researchers funded by independent fellowships compared with grants initiated by Principal Investigators."
Hmm. Thanks to diligent advocacy by a band of determined postdocs, PNU just established its own OPA on an 18-month trial basis. I wonder if they can get my retirement plan back.
I'll start at the beginning. When I began postdoctoral research at Pseudonymous Northwest University, my advisor's grant was paying my salary (at the NIH recommended minimum) and benefits. These included a pretty good healthcare plan as well as a nice employer-matched retirement program, both standard for faculty at PNU. However, like any good postdoc, I began applying for outside fellowships as soon as possible. Getting one would not only bring prestige to myself, my advisor, and PNU, it would also free up funds from my advisor's grant so that he could hire additional hands in the lab.
I was lucky enough to be awarded a coveted fellowship by a cancer research foundation, a feat apparently deserving of a brief congratulatory announcement in the PNU Weekly. This fellowship not only provided for a substantial raise in salary from the standard pittance received by starting postdocs, it also came with a $2000 annual allowance for educational expenses. Things were really looking up. I was hopeful that I might even be able to recoup my relocation expenses by the end of my first year.
A couple of months after beginning support on my new fellowship, I went to a conference on the East Coast to present my research in progress. My advisor encouraged me to go, saying that I could use my educational allowance to pay for my trip. Unfortunately, when I returned and sought reimbursement, the payroll office informed me that the money in question had already been put towards my benefits. To his dubious credit, my administratively challenged advisor was as surprised to be reminded of this as I was to learn of it. He instructed me to ask the department for travel funds, but on finding that none had been allocated for postdoctoral (as opposed to grad student or faculty) travel, he eventually agreed to cough up the funds himself.
That was Unpleasant Postdoc Surprise #1.
This morning I was talking to our lab manager about IRAs, having stayed up far too late the night before struggling with my income tax returns. At one point, she suggested that I check exactly what kind of employer-matched retirement fund I had so that we could compare. Imagine how I felt when I logged into my employee account and discovered that I NO LONGER HAD ONE.
It took an irate call to the PNU Benefits Office to ascertain that I had been reclassified from "research associate" to "research associate trainee" when my fellowship support commenced in August of last year. That made me immediately INELIGIBLE for my faculty retirement plan. Some great reward for my success in securing outside funding! Same person, same skills, same job, that blurb, and yet... less love. And no one had even bothered to inform me!
That was Unpleasant Postdoc Surprise #2.
Am I alone in my experiences? Hardly. At noon today I complained to a room of 15 postdocs from departments scattered throughout PNU and was informed that at least three others had suffered similar incidents. The fact is, it's all too easy for postdocs to fall between the cracks. Although we form a huge fraction of the experimental enterprise, especially at top tier research institutions like PNU, university administrators don't seem to know what to make of us. We're not exactly students, or staff, or faculty, or well-organized or represented. That results in extreme heterogeneity of title, salary, benefits, and access to resources. Until very recently, PNU didn't even know how many of us there were, much less how to contact us or assist us. We were left entirely to the mercy of our research mentors (and the extremely generous interpretation of Howard Hughes "graduate" training program funds by a sympathetic faculty member) for training and support.
Hopefully this situation will improve as recognition of postdocs' plight spreads. According to the National Postdoctoral Association, over 100 US universities and research institutions have established their own Postdoctoral Associations and/or Offices of Postdoctoral Affairs. Major areas of advocacy include equitable pay and benefits, funded opportunities for professional development, and tracking of training experiences and outcomes.
One major NPA recommendation, as it happens, is to "increase the percentage of postdoctoral researchers funded by independent fellowships compared with grants initiated by Principal Investigators."
Hmm. Thanks to diligent advocacy by a band of determined postdocs, PNU just established its own OPA on an 18-month trial basis. I wonder if they can get my retirement plan back.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Will Hormones HuRT You?
In 2002, a study was published which claimed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased the risk of stroke for older women. And this was no piddling fly-by-night affair - this was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled Women's Health Initiative study of 20,000 post-menopausal subjects conducted by the NIH. Since the investigators had hoped to show that estrogen had a protective effect on women's health, this unexpected result generated a lot of publicity and caused many alarmed women and their physicians to back off hastily from widely used hormonal treatments of menopausal symptoms.
But not so fast. How relevant are the results of this study to women in the real world? In a recent lecture at the University of Washington, Seattle, Dr. Phyllis Wise clued me in to the considerable caveats.
First of all, the women in the experimental group did not receive the standard doses of hormones used in treating menopausal symptoms; instead they were given relatively high, continuous doses of CEE (conjugated equine estrogen) along with MPA (which mimics progesterone and androgen and could interfere with estrogen). This was so that the investigators would be more likely to observe an effect, but was not an accurate re-creation of usual medical treatments.
Second, because this was a double blind study (no one was supposed to be able to tell who received treatment and who received placebo), only women who exhibited no menopausal symptoms were selected for the study. In other words, the investigators deliberately gave hormones to a group of women who would NOT normally seek hormone replacement therapy. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the experimental group was not representative of the population of women who undergo HRT, meaning that results from this study cannot safely be generalized to the patient population.
Most critically, the participants were women aged 50-79 (average 63) years at the beginning of the study, and many of them had never received hormone replacement therapy. Prior to the experimental treatment, these women had no estrogen circulating in their bodies for an average of TWELVE YEARS.
Why is this so important? Because, biologically speaking, as many lactose-intolerants and former high school athletes have realized, if you don't use it, you lose it. Estrogen, like other hormones, is a signal that has to be received in order to work. Only tissues that make a protein receptor for the estrogen molecule can be instructed by it. And guess what - if there hasn't been any estrogen around for years, the body stops wasting its resources on making estrogen receptors. After that, taking estrogen won't help a damned thing. It's like holding up a stop sign to a driver who has his eyes closed.
This idea is supported by a really cool series of studies by Dr. Wise's group in an animal model for stroke. Researchers removed the ovaries from rats to mimic menopause and later used a suture to block a cerebral artery, temporarily stopping bood flow to one side of the brain. If the rats were given estrogen treatments immediately after removal of their ovaries, they suffered much less tissue death upon blockage of blood flow. However, if estrogen treatment was delayed (for a time equivalent to the years human women spent between menopause and hormone treatment in the WIH study), there was no longer any health benefit. This was because the estrogen receptor (ER-alpha) that mediated the effect of estrogen on brain tissue damage, and would normally be produced at high levels in response to brain injury, was no longer present following prolonged estrogen deprivation.
So the authors of the famous WHI study can't conclude anything about the possible health risks or benefits of standard hormone replacement therapy for women who come to their doctors complaining of menopausal symptoms. No matter how large the study, if it can't accurately represent the relevant treatment method or patient population, then the results cannot reliably inform our medical decisions.
References
Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial, JAMA 288 (2002), pp. 321–333.
P.M. Wise (2006). Estrogen therapy: Does it help or hurt the adult and aging brain? Insights derived from animal models. Neuroscience 138(3):831-5.
But not so fast. How relevant are the results of this study to women in the real world? In a recent lecture at the University of Washington, Seattle, Dr. Phyllis Wise clued me in to the considerable caveats.
First of all, the women in the experimental group did not receive the standard doses of hormones used in treating menopausal symptoms; instead they were given relatively high, continuous doses of CEE (conjugated equine estrogen) along with MPA (which mimics progesterone and androgen and could interfere with estrogen). This was so that the investigators would be more likely to observe an effect, but was not an accurate re-creation of usual medical treatments.
Second, because this was a double blind study (no one was supposed to be able to tell who received treatment and who received placebo), only women who exhibited no menopausal symptoms were selected for the study. In other words, the investigators deliberately gave hormones to a group of women who would NOT normally seek hormone replacement therapy. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the experimental group was not representative of the population of women who undergo HRT, meaning that results from this study cannot safely be generalized to the patient population.
Most critically, the participants were women aged 50-79 (average 63) years at the beginning of the study, and many of them had never received hormone replacement therapy. Prior to the experimental treatment, these women had no estrogen circulating in their bodies for an average of TWELVE YEARS.
Why is this so important? Because, biologically speaking, as many lactose-intolerants and former high school athletes have realized, if you don't use it, you lose it. Estrogen, like other hormones, is a signal that has to be received in order to work. Only tissues that make a protein receptor for the estrogen molecule can be instructed by it. And guess what - if there hasn't been any estrogen around for years, the body stops wasting its resources on making estrogen receptors. After that, taking estrogen won't help a damned thing. It's like holding up a stop sign to a driver who has his eyes closed.
This idea is supported by a really cool series of studies by Dr. Wise's group in an animal model for stroke. Researchers removed the ovaries from rats to mimic menopause and later used a suture to block a cerebral artery, temporarily stopping bood flow to one side of the brain. If the rats were given estrogen treatments immediately after removal of their ovaries, they suffered much less tissue death upon blockage of blood flow. However, if estrogen treatment was delayed (for a time equivalent to the years human women spent between menopause and hormone treatment in the WIH study), there was no longer any health benefit. This was because the estrogen receptor (ER-alpha) that mediated the effect of estrogen on brain tissue damage, and would normally be produced at high levels in response to brain injury, was no longer present following prolonged estrogen deprivation.
So the authors of the famous WHI study can't conclude anything about the possible health risks or benefits of standard hormone replacement therapy for women who come to their doctors complaining of menopausal symptoms. No matter how large the study, if it can't accurately represent the relevant treatment method or patient population, then the results cannot reliably inform our medical decisions.
References
Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial, JAMA 288 (2002), pp. 321–333.
P.M. Wise (2006). Estrogen therapy: Does it help or hurt the adult and aging brain? Insights derived from animal models. Neuroscience 138(3):831-5.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Just the Fats, Ma'am
In a recent widely publicized Women's Health Initiative study, the NIH found no significant differences in the incidence of breast cancer, heart disease, or stroke for women following a low-fat diet. This pronouncement was met with surprise by many clinicians (and one suspects with glee by the National Restaurant Association). But should we really conclude that years of warnings about reducing fat intake were mistaken?
Too little?
The study was meant to compare one group of women who had reduced their total fat intake to 20% of dietary calories with a control group who got 35-37% of their calories from fat. Investigators expected that such a substantial difference in fat consumption would reveal any impact of fats on women's health. And it might have... except that the low-fat group never met the study's goal. The women managed to reduce their fat consumption to 24% of total calories in the first year, but by year six were up to 29%, a difference of only 8% of calories from the control group*. This might not have been enough to affect their chances of developing cancer, heart disease, or stroke, even if fat intake were an important factor. In fact, the subset of women who reduced their fat intake the most did seem to reduce their risk of breast cancer.
Too late?
The participating women were aged 50-79 years at the start of the study and followed for about 8 years. This means that they were already old enough to be at fairly high risk for various cancers as well as heart disease before the changes in diet. These illnesses develop over time, and it is still quite possible that a low-fat diet earlier in life could help to prevent them.
Good fat, bad fat
Most troubling was the failure of this study to distinguish between the various types of fat that make up total fat intake. Saturated fats (mainly from animal products like red meat and dairy), and especially trans fats (from hydrogenated oils), have long been linked to increased risk for heart disease. But unsaturated fats, from fish, nuts, and vegetable oils, are considered "good fats" that lower risk for heart disease. So instructing the participants specifically to reduce their trans and saturated fat intake (and maybe even increase unsaturated fat) could have produced very different results.
All in all, just the kind of situation that confuses everyone and makes me crazy. No wonder people lose faith in the ever-fluctuating recommendations of scientists and clinicians. Even studies like this - huge, well-funded, controlled studies that should be setting the standards - have built-in design flaws that finally allow us to conclude... absolutely nothing.
*This made me grateful that I study the effects of diet in fruit flies and not human beings. If I want to look at brain development on a protein-free diet, my experimental subjects will stick to sucrose, and dammit, they'll like it.
Too little?
The study was meant to compare one group of women who had reduced their total fat intake to 20% of dietary calories with a control group who got 35-37% of their calories from fat. Investigators expected that such a substantial difference in fat consumption would reveal any impact of fats on women's health. And it might have... except that the low-fat group never met the study's goal. The women managed to reduce their fat consumption to 24% of total calories in the first year, but by year six were up to 29%, a difference of only 8% of calories from the control group*. This might not have been enough to affect their chances of developing cancer, heart disease, or stroke, even if fat intake were an important factor. In fact, the subset of women who reduced their fat intake the most did seem to reduce their risk of breast cancer.
Too late?
The participating women were aged 50-79 years at the start of the study and followed for about 8 years. This means that they were already old enough to be at fairly high risk for various cancers as well as heart disease before the changes in diet. These illnesses develop over time, and it is still quite possible that a low-fat diet earlier in life could help to prevent them.
Good fat, bad fat
Most troubling was the failure of this study to distinguish between the various types of fat that make up total fat intake. Saturated fats (mainly from animal products like red meat and dairy), and especially trans fats (from hydrogenated oils), have long been linked to increased risk for heart disease. But unsaturated fats, from fish, nuts, and vegetable oils, are considered "good fats" that lower risk for heart disease. So instructing the participants specifically to reduce their trans and saturated fat intake (and maybe even increase unsaturated fat) could have produced very different results.
All in all, just the kind of situation that confuses everyone and makes me crazy. No wonder people lose faith in the ever-fluctuating recommendations of scientists and clinicians. Even studies like this - huge, well-funded, controlled studies that should be setting the standards - have built-in design flaws that finally allow us to conclude... absolutely nothing.
*This made me grateful that I study the effects of diet in fruit flies and not human beings. If I want to look at brain development on a protein-free diet, my experimental subjects will stick to sucrose, and dammit, they'll like it.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Dealing with India
On March 7, the New York Times ran an editorial that lamented President Bush's recent trip to India and Pakistan. The authors contend that, while a similar offer should not have been made to our ally Gen. Musharraf, who pardoned the Pakistani scientist that helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states, "Granting India a loophole that damages a vital treaty and lets New Delhi accelerate production of nuclear bombs makes no sense either."
The treaty in question is, of course, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by the five nations possessing nuclear weapons in 1968 as well as the vast majority of the remaining sovereign states, including both Iran and North Korea (which has since withdrawn). It was not signed by India, Pakistan, or Israel, all three of which have since developed nuclear technology and are believed to possesss more than 60 missiles apiece. Although the US signed the treaty, we were engaged in secret weapons sharing agreements with non-nuclear members of NATO, and still provide nuclear bombs to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, thus violating Articles I and II. (This fine example of global leadership fits right in with our refusal to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban, along with China, Israel, India, and Pakistan.)
So the US is hardly in a position to take the moral high ground when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Clearly we are willing to operate by a double standard in our own interests - or, let's say, in the interest of global stability - by providing trusted democratic allies with weapons of mass destruction.
And the new deal with India doesn't even go that far. The proposed agreement 1) does not introduce nuclear technology to a non-nuclear power, 2) provides nuclear materials for civilian energy use, not military purposes, and 3) encourages India to reclassify many existing nuclear plants as "civilian" and subject them to monitoring by the IAEA.
In fact, my main question is, why has it taken so long for the US to create official agreements like this with the world's largest democracy? Apparently we're still suffering the after-effects of the cold war strategy that involved support of military coups (especially in Central/South America) in opposition to those left-leaning legitimately elected leaders who might turn out to be (cue ominous music)... COMMIE SYMPATHIZERS!!! And India, which chose to pursue many socialist policies as a fledgling nation to keep itself from being economically overrun by more powerful nations, has been regarded with similar suspicion... in contrast to neighboring Pakistan, currently ruled by the military dictator who usurped their democratically elected leader.
And let's face it, having Musharraf on our side really hasn't accomplished very much in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Although, as our President said recently, finding Bin Laden isn't really that important anyway.
Because clearly it's much more critical to eliminate a sovereign government with no links to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda - a secular regime, however abhorrent, that had been providing a critical balance against fundamentalist Iran. And to maintain good relations with the Sauds and Emirati who supplied 17 of the 19 identified 9/11 hijackers.
***
Declaration of competing interests: I am currently dating an Indian national, discussions with whom provided the basis for this post.
The treaty in question is, of course, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by the five nations possessing nuclear weapons in 1968 as well as the vast majority of the remaining sovereign states, including both Iran and North Korea (which has since withdrawn). It was not signed by India, Pakistan, or Israel, all three of which have since developed nuclear technology and are believed to possesss more than 60 missiles apiece. Although the US signed the treaty, we were engaged in secret weapons sharing agreements with non-nuclear members of NATO, and still provide nuclear bombs to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, thus violating Articles I and II. (This fine example of global leadership fits right in with our refusal to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban, along with China, Israel, India, and Pakistan.)
So the US is hardly in a position to take the moral high ground when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Clearly we are willing to operate by a double standard in our own interests - or, let's say, in the interest of global stability - by providing trusted democratic allies with weapons of mass destruction.
And the new deal with India doesn't even go that far. The proposed agreement 1) does not introduce nuclear technology to a non-nuclear power, 2) provides nuclear materials for civilian energy use, not military purposes, and 3) encourages India to reclassify many existing nuclear plants as "civilian" and subject them to monitoring by the IAEA.
In fact, my main question is, why has it taken so long for the US to create official agreements like this with the world's largest democracy? Apparently we're still suffering the after-effects of the cold war strategy that involved support of military coups (especially in Central/South America) in opposition to those left-leaning legitimately elected leaders who might turn out to be (cue ominous music)... COMMIE SYMPATHIZERS!!! And India, which chose to pursue many socialist policies as a fledgling nation to keep itself from being economically overrun by more powerful nations, has been regarded with similar suspicion... in contrast to neighboring Pakistan, currently ruled by the military dictator who usurped their democratically elected leader.
And let's face it, having Musharraf on our side really hasn't accomplished very much in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Although, as our President said recently, finding Bin Laden isn't really that important anyway.
Because clearly it's much more critical to eliminate a sovereign government with no links to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda - a secular regime, however abhorrent, that had been providing a critical balance against fundamentalist Iran. And to maintain good relations with the Sauds and Emirati who supplied 17 of the 19 identified 9/11 hijackers.
***
Declaration of competing interests: I am currently dating an Indian national, discussions with whom provided the basis for this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
