Open Science Thread

Science policy is on the verge of a dramatic change. We can debate and discuss what a McCain science policy vs. a Democratic one would look like, but change it will. What will that mean for funding and priorities, how will those opposed to change seek to obstruct it, and more importantly, what do you think we can or should do about any of it?

I'm happy to announce that that's one set of question we will be examining at Netroots Nation 2008 this July in Austin, Texas; together, we will examine the possible, brighter future, using the lens of the recent, dimmer past. The speakers that will lead that effort are, in no particular order:

Constance McKee is a biotechnology entrepreneur who is the co-founder of for-profit Manzanita Pharmaceuticals and a co-founder of non-profit BioE2E. She is currently Co-Executive Director of Americans for Cures Foundation, a non-profit organization supporting grassroots advocacy for stem cell research. If you're thinking that President Bush's veto on human embryonic stem cell research will be easily lifted in January 2009, Constance will set you straight: hard-core conservative activists are chipping away at this hugely important research in state legislatures, in the courts and in public debate. But she and her team have a 50-state "people-powered" strategy to defend the right of American families and veterans to have the best medical care.

Dr. Mark Bowen, Ph. D., blogs at Tipping Points and is the author of the magnificent book, Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming (Reviews & Order page). At NrN Mark will continue courageously flipping over slimy rocks revealing anti-science specimens in their natural, hidden state, and perhaps look at ways to keep them from emerging, once again, to further drain the lifeblood of legitimate science from the body politic. He will also discuss research priorities for the nation's climate science programs in general and for science at NASA, perhaps our most inspiring science agency, which has suffered some body blows in recent years.¹

Ed Brayton is a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the voice behind the popular blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars. He was recently elected president of Michigan Citizens for Science and has been a longtime activist in the battle to protect and improve science education. He hasn’t decided what subject he’s going to speak on, but he’s pretty sure the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design Creationists aren’t gonna like it.

Andrew Hoppin of the NASA CoLab will also be on hand as a non partisan moderator, and to answer any questions about what a progressive vision at NASA might look like.

I don't speak for NrN, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other discussions regarding science such as the environment, energy, and perhaps health care or medical science in general. Those and other major NrN 2008 announcements will start coming hard and heavy in the next few weeks (And trust me on this, some major 6th Street partying activities are planned!), so register while you can and stay tuned!

From a source at NrN: Our reserved rooms at the discounted bulk rate at the Convention Hotel were filling up a few weeks ago quickly. My understanding is that that trend continues. Also, this may not be current anymore, but Southwest had some bargain one way flights going from the cities below to Austin:

Austin, TX
$79 one-way, to/from
Denver, CO
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Los Angeles, CA
Oakland, CA
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia, PA

•  Happy Saturday!

  Some way back reading music on this sweet Sat morning, oh merciful King of Days:

  by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:12:17 AM PDT

•  NASA body blows

  are not undeserved in some cases.   But, I think by and large they have done tremendously well with the budgets given them.

  As far as Hansen goes, his refusal to publish his methodologies, fudge factors, etc. in calculating his numbers is inexcusable in science.  While he may not deserve all the crap thrown at him by global warming deniers, he brings it upon himself with his refusal to publish his data gathering techniques, and makes one wonder what there is to hide.

  Austin in July!  Sounds like fun, but a bit sticky!

  by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:24:10 AM PDT

  •  Are

    you talking about Dr James Hansen at NASA GISS? Surely not.

    I correspond with that Jim Hansen regularly and I've never known him to refuse to publish anything related to his research. In my experience it's been quite the opposite in fact: he has bent over backwards to show his work and taken time to explain it step by step to me and just about anyone else who asks. Beware of lobbyist propaganda, because that's kinda what that complaint sounds like to me, based on the consensus of many independent climate researchers I speak with. Moreover, his predictions have been dead on accurate for thirty-years. That's how he gained such enormous credibility over the years in the first place and that is the relevant metric in any field of science.

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:32:04 AM PDT

    •  not to mention the fact

      that almost 3,000 climate scientists from 70-odd nations around the world  (none of whom care if the democrats win the election) studied all the available data, applied the best available methods, and reached exactly the same conclusions that Hansen did.

      The global-warming-deniers tend to, uh, not mention that fact.

      That's the wonderful thing about science -- nobody has to take anybody's word for ANYTHING.  Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can do his or her own study and reach his or her own conclusions.

      And when everyone does so and reaches the same conclusion, there's simply nothing left to argue over.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:46:05 AM PDT

      •  On the other hand...

        That's the wonderful thing about science -- nobody has to take anybody's word for ANYTHING.  Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can do his or her own study and reach his or her own conclusions.

        Of course, that's the exact thing the science deniers at the Heartland Institute and the Moron Magnet use to put their wedge between science and the electorate.  Since every scientist can disagree with other scientists' research and come to his or her own conclusions, all science is bunk, and every slight difference of opinion between scientists means that the whole thing is wrong.

        More and more I'm believing that the difference between progressives and conservatives is one of complexity.  Conservatives need everything in simple, black-and-white terms while we're able to embrace the inherent complexity of every issue.

        by toasterhead on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:13:52 AM PDT

        •  It's always been simple

          in my POV.
          Progressives- Tree good, fire bad.
          Conservatives- Tree bad, cave good.
          And it just builds up from there.

          by RElland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:24:03 AM PDT

          •  OTOH

            Progressives- Tree good, fire bad.
            Conservatives- Tree bad, cave good.

            Liberals think both tree and fire good.

            It is rather odd but fire is needed by the giant redwoods and many desert plants to grow.

            Might be better to burn biomass for energy than to burn up people and houses and animals - and trees.  People don't burn well.

            Best,  Terry

            by terryhallinan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:28 AM PDT

        •  Goals: Conservatism Is About Amassing Wealth

          for a few individuals and protecting it from the many. So it's all about force and authoritarianism. Life is indeed pretty simple in that world.

          Liberalism is about building a successful society, which is vastly more complicated process. It requires monitoring, assessment, feedback, regulation, incentives, --vastly more problem solving than conservatism.

          Any more they're like apples and streetcars.

          by Gooserock on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM PDT

    •  One and the same..

      He refused for years to publish his code.  After a little research, I see he finally did this last fall, after much badgering.  Better late than never!

      I haven't been keeping up with this as much as I'd like.. real life intrudes.  But I'm surprised you had not heard of this controversy before now.

      by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:47:29 AM PDT

      •  It

        is odd that not a single climate researcher hasn't mentioned it to me in several years of reporting on this, isn't it ...

        by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:48:41 AM PDT

        •  Perhaps no one bothered

          questioning Hansen's methods.

          Climate skeptics have been crying for Hansen's code for years.

          Steve McIntyre, who caused all the fury last year that caused Hansen to revise warming temperatures (Recent US Temperature Numbers Revised Downwards Today) spearheaded an effort to get Hansen to publish his code.

          Apparently, Hansen finally did in Spetemper.

          A Good First Step: Hansen & GISS Release the Code

          Now, these are climate skeptics, so I take everything they say with a large grain of salt.  But it is fact that Hansen wouldn't publish his code and did so only under pressure.

          A discuission of the code when it was first released is here: Hansen Frees the Code

          I'll try to find out if examination of the code over the past months has gleaned any useful insights.

          by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:36:20 AM PDT

          •  Who has demanded and was refused?

            Climate sceptics is a broad category and maybe the problem is that Hansen does not reply to some queries depending on source. I understand ID advocates have problems with getting information at times when they wish to review data without having standing in the scientific community.

            by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:09:09 AM PDT

          •  Thanks

            I appreciate the quick response. It seems to me in all fairness if the code you refer to has been provided, his results previously, independently replicated the world over, and many predictions confirmed, that that objection is no longer significant, yes?

            by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:59:57 AM PDT

            •  It wasn't so much an objection

              as an observation as to the reason for some of his criticism.  I said he brought some of that on himself by holding back the code that produces his results.  But yes that seems to have been resolved.

              As for "independently replicated", I don't see how that would have been possible prior to his publishing his code in September, as far as GISS surface temp analysis goes, at least.

              I suspect there will be minor quibbles about fudge factors for certain sites (that critics will blow out of proportion!).  But still, he could have deflected a lot of criticism by being open much earlier.

              I'll look into it further and post some links to what I find.

              by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:18:45 AM PDT

              •  regarding McIntyre

                some information on him:

                http://www.sourcewatch.org/...

                http://info-pollution.com/...

                http://www.marshall.org/...

                by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:32:55 AM PDT

                •  Yes, the hockey stick controversy..

                  still being debated..

                  That sourcewatch entry is pretty slim..  here's the wikipedia entry on him..

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  Still..you can't deny Hansen revised his warming stats last summer after McIntyre's analysis showed errors.  So, while he's not part of the climate "community", whatever that may be, he seems to know his statitics and has an eye for anomalous data.

                  I, for one, am glad someone is taking a hard look at the numbers.  That's what science is about.

                  by Skeptical Bastard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM PDT

      •  I've not heard of it either

        Perhaps you could share where YOU heard of it . . . ?

        by Lenny Flank on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:50:25 AM PDT

    •  Thanks, DarkSyde

      Not hard to figure from whence the bad PR on Dr. Hansen  originates.

      People hate to have their sacred oxen gored.

      Best,  Terry

      by terryhallinan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM PDT

  •  citation for this?

    I admit much of my information comes from Bad Astronomy but the sharing of information is one requirement for the scientist. How can a scientist receive peer criticism or even be considered for publication in an academic or professional journal if he refuses to release data or methodology.

    This cuts against the whole intellectual basis of the peer review system.

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:05:45 AM PDT

•  For example

  NYT -- That has meant that work involving newer stem cell lines cannot share even a microscope with a project that is federally financed.

  Current restrictions on federally funded lines means that specific research tools and equipment used in a federally funded study using 'Bush approved' lines cannot be commingled with research and equipment using privately produced 'Bush verboten' lines. Likewise, pressure is being brought on GO's like the FDA -- manned by neocon cronies -- to drag their feet on approving various testing regimens for future therapies using private lines. The (Intended) result is to erect expensive, pain-in-the-ass regulatory obstacles to private or non federally funded funded research, despite what Bush apologists misleadingly claim when they argue the federal fund ban does not restrict private research and development in the 'free market'.

  by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:17:00 AM PDT

  •  I have to wonder about the example of the seed co

    Whenever federal or state funding develops something, it is frequently available to the public at little cost; whenever companies develop something, they usually expect to be paid through the nose for it. I remember some years ago. some enterprising companies copyrighting people's genes in Central America, I believe and then attempting to enforce the patents to the extent of interferring with the individuals' health care.

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:12:01 AM PDT

•  Good morning Darksyde. I was just reading

  an interesting article in the New York Times about people with mental illness (neurobiological disorders).
  http://www.nytimes.com/...
  Then I watched a bunch of Liz Spikol's youtube videos linked to in the article. She is wonderful. Have you ever seen any of her videos?
  This qualifies as science chit chat, doesn't it?

  by flumptytail on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:23:44 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    it qualifies. It's an open science thread anyway with empasis on open and thread.

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:25:22 AM PDT

    •  Cool, thanks.n/t

      by flumptytail on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:29:09 AM PDT

      •  So now I'm thinking of the sound of horses

        sucking up over ripe persimmons.  Thanks!

        by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:19:20 AM PDT

        •  Lol, you're the first one to mention that. I'm

          thiking of changing it to a Helen Thomas quote soon. Relief may be on the way.

          by flumptytail on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:33:32 AM PDT

          •  Does she like persimmons too?

            by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:59:58 PM PDT

  •  Can we talk? The PoliSci of mental illness.

    Can we talk?   Mental Illness:Science&Politics

    I think mental illness is between science & politics.  I've always felt that mental illness was a disease LACK OF EASE in relationships.  And politics...the art of getting along.  So mental illness and politics go together, IMHO.

    In your link, it mentioned Elyn Saks, tenured law professor and schizophrenic and it reminded me that there is a serious quuestion being raised about tenure and its 'nutty' professors.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/...

    by Aidos on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:47:57 AM PDT

    •  You've given me something to ponder there.

      I'll go read that when I get a chance later today. I was just glad to see people talking more openly about it all over the years.

      by flumptytail on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:24:24 AM PDT

  •  Thank you

    One well hidden secret has been the horror with which mental illness has been viewed, even by professionals.  Examine the records of any medical board and see how many licenses are pulled due to mental disease and then how many times people with alcohol and drug abuse problems are given a second chance. Noting the two are different problems it is still ironic that a physician with a history of depression has a better chance of losing his license than one with a history of alcohol and drug abuse and an ongoing addiction.

    I asked an attorney for a state medical board about their program for rehabilitating impaired physicians (2 week counselling program) specifically those with mental or physical disabilities. He said no such request had ever been honored; the program was for addictions.

    After all, a mentally disturbed individual should not practice medicine, while an addict has to only recover.

    With this viewpoint from professionals, what avenues remain open to those who battle mental illness every day?

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:20:05 AM PDT

    •  Oh dear, that is pretty sad. So many people

      do know about this and talk among themselves, but as a society, we do keep our hidden secrets. Here's hoping we get more enlightened and that better treatments and even cures happen sooner rather than later. I was just thrilled to see youtubes popping up with people talking about it.

      by flumptytail on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:31:28 AM PDT

•  Happy SciSat. Always enjoy your posts :)

  I was disappointed that NrN did not give me space/time to present in Austin.  True there wan't much substantive material available on my topic, Normalization of Child Sexualization, but my proposed panel was brilliant and it would have given me a great networking opportunity.

  That being said, the presenters you mention are stellar and I can't wait to hear Andrew Hoppin.  I was a signatory to the 1st Space Nursing Conference at the Universsity of Alabama in Huntsville.  NASA reps considered one of us for the ill-fated Challenger Mission, but chose Christy McAuliffe, a teacher, as the frist civilian in space.

  My question for him is: Is there the collective will needed to fund and pursue both manned and un-manned space exploration.  What can be done to democratize space exploration, making it accessible to the masses.

  by Aidos on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:24:27 AM PDT

  •  I'm

    sorry to hear about your panel proposal Aidos. There were so many excellent panels submitted this year, NrN had to make some heartbreaking decisions. It was not an enjoyable task for those folks to have to do either. I'll be sure Andrew sees your query and thanks!

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:29:02 AM PDT

    •  DarkSyde, thanks. n/t

      by Aidos on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:00:41 AM PDT

•  Good Morning

  looks like you are getting pumped up for Netroots Nation.

  as I drove thru your neck of the woods Thursday the roads construction on I-95 was in full swing. they can work during the day there. in so Florida they have to do that overnight because of the traffic jams it would cause. It amazes me to see them pour the cement 12" deep for the road.
  I guess we could say the science jams in 2009 will  be 24/7. that will be exciting to watch/read from the sidelines for a peon like me as it passes by in cyber

  Here in Concord NC it's looking to be a beauty of a day ! Hope it's the same for everyone else

  by eeff on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:32:25 AM PDT

  •  Eeff!?

    WTF are you doing in Concord anyway?

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:39:05 AM PDT

    •  moved

      it was time for change  :)
      I had worked for Tesco for 18 months ! that's a long time for me LOL
      what's really funny though is how much I despise looking for a job !

      by eeff on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:41:49 AM PDT

•  GOP scince policies = business as usual

  Years ago, land grant colleges developed open varieties of seed so farmers could buy foundation stock and save 3 generations of seed and also sell them to other farmers.  However, as funding decreased to these programs, fewer and fewer new open varieties were develpoed.

  In the meantime, the few major seed companinies produced gene altered seed which could only be used for one generation, preventing farmers from saving seed. In addition, the companies aggressively sued any farmer whose crops showed those patented genes, even if the pollination was due to wind or insect pollination from another field and was wholly incidental. Farmers not wanting the gene found themselves sued when the genes contaminated their own seed stocks.

  BTW, in the event of gene failure, such as Roundup Ready crops being burned down by the herbicides they were supposed to tolerate, all the loss was on the farmer as companies vigourously denied any liability though in some cases it could cost the farmer an entire crop year.

  Saving seed is central to subsistence farming; such farmers cannot afford to buy seed every year. In addition, the loss of indigenous strains has led to gene loss as these new varieties come from only a few gene lines, sometimes as few as 3.

  Seed companies have now developed seed which only germinates for one generation; should the seed crosspollinate another farmer's crop, much of his seed may also be sterile after the first generation. Seed companies deny any responsibility and protect their copyrights jealously.

  In the meantime, this has contributed to the mass movement of people from the land as well as pushing subsistance farming to adopt the methods of megafarming, even where inappropriate.    

  by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:02:26 AM PDT

•  Hansen's latest paper is scary

  Last month, Hansen and his colleagues wrote Target Atmospheric CO-2: Where Should Humanity Aim, in which they contend that a carbon dioxide concentration above 350 ppm (we're currently in the 380s) for a sustained period of time will unleash feedback loops that will make the Earth a different place from that in which civilization developed.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:15:54 AM PDT

  •  the denialists' stuff is scarier

    since everything from flatulent cows to too many trees to natural cycles to researcher fraud is blamed. Anything except human activity. Indeed we have Rush trumpeting that environmentalists have caused the US to lose face in the eyes of the world and to slip economically.
    (Pay no attention to the war in Iraq behind the curtain)  

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:23:08 AM PDT

•  The next Sec. of the Interior

  I'm currently polling all cabinet positions for a future Obama cabinet. Today, you can vote on the next Sec. of the Interior. Among his/her responsibilities is overseeing the US Geological Survey.

  by Sven at My Silver State on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:16:07 AM PDT

•  Always enjoy reading your posts, of course!

  I won't be at Netroots Nation, but I have a good excuse: I'll be presenting a short talk at the American Society of Virology's national meeting!

  I'm most definitely going to be keeping a close eye on science policy; since my next career stop is at the NIH, whether McSame or Obama is elected may determine whether I can even find a job in this country, let alone the NIH, after that postdoc ends.  Provided there IS an NIH if yet another Republican president guts its funding.

  First, though, I have to get there.  I received some very bad news my last colonoscopy, and now bowel resection surgery is inevitable.  This has created a series of interlocking nightmares, since my student health insurance is, to put it charitably, "junk" insurance, but I cannot wait to move to DC and get well settled in a new lab to start the surgery.  I won't live another year as is.  The surgery comes in two parts, too, so it has to be precisely timed with my job change, insurance change, and move -- a feat I have no idea how I am going to manage.  Just the health insurance side of this is complex enough to be its own diary.

  I'm going to need all the luck I can get.

  by ArchTeryx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:47:24 AM PDT

  •  Wow, sorry to hear this story

    Best of luck.  Our thoughts are with you.

    by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:12:43 AM PDT

  •  Sorry to hear about this

    If you are swappping insurances in midstream be sure that the new carrier does not try to exclude anything based on pre-existing conditions or that your previous insurance does not offer you COBRA. Of course the kicker here is that in order for pre-existing conditions is that you have to have been covered by a group health policy for the previous year and I am told by carrier reps that this excludes any private policies.
    Like you said, a diary just on the pre-cert angle. (I know having had to push through a PET scan last year, before the deductible recycled on Jan.1, and the carriers all have different diseases which they will cover for PET scan (which means you have to be diagnosed before the scan instead of using the PET scan as diagnostic. As they said, the PET is meant to be confirmatory, not diagnostic)and even having different criteria for each disease state from carrier to carrier.

    OTOH its tough paying a CEO $120M annual salary so the money has to come from somewhere.    

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:21:46 AM PDT

    •  I'm a little less worried about...

      Pre-existing conditions.  I'm going straight from one large group policy to the grandaddy of them all, a government health insurance policy.  At most, they can exclude me for 6 months, but I have to wait 6 months anyway between the two surgeries.

      The problem more lies in having the same surgeon do both the first and second, and/or finding one I trust in D.C. on such short notice.

      Then, who knows what nasty little loopholes they will have cooked up this year?

      by ArchTeryx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:24:23 AM PDT

      •  Family friend went to Egypt for eye

        surgery after getting the job botched at a major university medical center. His point was that there is no reason to only think US anymore for quality care. A surgeon himself, he said that there are many alternatives than existed even 10 years ago,

        This is why a cousin with advanced MS flew to China last month seeking treatment; the rest of the world is overtaking us in medicine and research.

        by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:33:31 AM PDT

        •  Believe me, thought of this too.

          I have a sister in France who'd assist me with this.  But the nature of this particular surgery tends to exclude it from medical tourism -- it's higher risk, not profitable enough, requires very intimate coordination with an existing gastroenterologist, and it comes in two or even three stages over several months.

          by ArchTeryx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:40:04 AM PDT

          •  another family friend had the surgery

            some 10 or 12 years ago and after rehab has done fine with it. However he had it done in the US and had state insurance coverage so it was no problem for him. (along with being Chairman of the hospital board at the time)

            by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:06:13 AM PDT

•  Can we really expect science policy to change

  significantly for the better when popular media is dominated by the right wing noise machine which serves corporate and non-rational theocratic interests?  If not for the free flow of information on the net we'd be in a world of hurt.  Much of this struggle involves radio, television, and local school boards.  Of course getting rational honest people in positions of power, setting policy, helps too.

  by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:47:25 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    but I don't see what we can lose by trying, and if we want change, we have little choice but to try.

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:49:32 AM PDT

    •  Oh yes, we must try very hard

      but the effort is across many fronts.  It's all interrelated.  The right has worked hard for many years to reshape the power structure of our society on  many levels.  It will take an equivalent effort to bring it back  to where it serves the best interests of the populace.  Science policy is an important part of this tapestry.

      by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:05:50 AM PDT

  •  to the point a science teacher related to me

    a student reciting a Limbaugh talking point that climate change is not happening; the polar ice is melting but the ice caps on Mars are melting too so the Sun must be getting hotter.
    Easily refutable? Sure but it disrupts the lesson plan, confuses students struggling with basic concepts, and wastes limited time to cover a great deal of material.
    However, the student acheived his goal; the delay and confusion moved the chapter test from Friday to Monday so it is another weekend to live.

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:25:18 AM PDT

    •  They're really pushing this increased solar

      output meme, though it's been disproven.  But just throw some doubt out there to confuse things and the goal is achieved.  Students are taught by the evolution deniers to do that same thing in the classroom you describe, just enough to disrupt the lesson plan.  Once it gets off track the day is shot.  Politics as usual.

      by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:39:44 AM PDT

      •  I think Pandasthumb.org covered this

        this week, discussing how much science should HS students be taught and at what point does critical thinking become part of the experience.
        The general consensus was that a student had to have enough basic or rudimentary knowledge to grasp the underlying concepts and to extrapolate from them/
        On these grounds, it was agreed that JHS or HS is not the place to present competing theories on any advanced topic and that few college freshmen have a sufficient background in the basics of science to argue ID with a professor. (since so many of the ID blogs seem to be freshmen complaining about not getting respect from their professors or the caller to Rush bragging about how he was educating his Econ 101 professor on how Milton Friedman saved the South American economy and what a clown Krugman is)    

        by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:11:10 AM PDT

•  The genome of the platypus has been sequenced

  ... and there is some cool stuff to be found.  I'm a civilian on these matters, so maybe it's old news to the geneticists among you.  

  Moreover, the key gene on the Y chromosome that confers maleness in most mammals is not present on any of the platypus' sex chromosomes. It is on another chromosome, where it seems to have nothing to do with sex. In its place, another gene seems to be central to sex determination in platypuses - evidence of a shakeout of various evolutionary efforts to settle on a system of sex determination in early mammals.

  Other genes show how platypuses were transitional creatures on the road from egg laying to internal gestation. There is just one gene for one kind of yolk protein, for example, while chickens have three. That is consistent with the idea that the platypus represents a shift in strategy toward providing more nutrition after hatching, rather than during incubation, and lends credence to the poet Ogden Nash's famous appreciation of the platypus' approach to child-rearing: "I like the way it raises its family/Partly birdly, partly mammaly."

  by lineatus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:51:08 AM PDT

  •  Didn't know!

    Wow.  I didn't know about the genome sequencing but that platypus' genes sound as weird as the rest of it.   Very cool. :>

    by ArchTeryx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:57:26 AM PDT

  •  also, while egg laying, it also produces milk

    and it appears that the platypus is evolving to feed its young more and longer than previously. I am delighted as the next time an IDer asks for a transitional fossil, I can point to the playtpus and tell him to watch it transition,

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:27:10 AM PDT

    •  And, conveniently, the fossil still walks

      (well, waddles) among us.  Of course, they'd probably cite that as proof that their dinosaur and human dioramas are plausible.

      by lineatus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:53:12 AM PDT

      •  this may be a slogan to cover blue dog

        Deomcrats when running for re-election:

        if it walks like a duck and talk like a duck, it may be a platypus so get your ducks in a row.

        by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:12:31 AM PDT

  •  i like how people see

    the platypus as a sweet little mammal with a ducky smile when a platypus has a nasty claw on it's foot with terrible venom.....
    Lovely creature.

    by TexMex on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:03:01 AM PDT

•  Looks like a tremendous panel ...

  by the way, have you ever looked at BPSDB:  Blogging on PseudoScientific DoucheBags.  You will likely find material of interest there.

  by A Siegel on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:54:04 AM PDT

•  THE REAL CAUSE OF GW

  The trip over to Sadly, No is worth it just for this one piece of denialism:

  http://www.sadlyno.com/

  which proves global warming is caused by homeless people and the sooner we dispense with them, the sooner we can get back to making money raping the planet.

  Among other added bonuses as the reader scrolls down is Jonah Goldberg's explanation and defense of the Tuskaheegee Syphilis Experiments which were not racist and did not cause anyone to die.

  On your way down you can stop to read Michelle Malkin's critique of how Michelle Obama is just another Scary Angry Black Woman and other intellectual gaffes among the RW hosts.

  Sadly No reads these so you won't have to.    

  by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:13:40 AM PDT

  •  This battle will nevr end, will it?

    by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:21:19 AM PDT

    •  Not so long as people can subvert science

      to politics and get away with it. Sadly, I think science knowledge decreases each day as I note fewer and fewer accessible academic and professional sites and more and more crackpot sites, Google any slackjawed, empty headed theory or scheme and see how many millions of hits you get. No wonder students remain terminally confused.

      by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:29:50 AM PDT

      •  Michael Shermer

        made an interesting correlation in Why People Believe Weird Things. The more credible and well known science becomes, the more pseudoscience you get. The relationship is the opposite of what you'd rationally expect. But what's going on isn't rational, it's fraud, and fraudsters utilize whatever is the most effective and credible hook.

        by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:37:18 AM PDT

      •  Yes, anybody can post on the internet.

        My students were lost when it came to sifting the wheat from the chaff of search engine results.  The evolution deniers were the worst.

        by C Barr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:43:16 AM PDT

        •  my youngest son years ago

          not being the most industrious of students, submitted a term paper based on the idea that Andrew Johnson assassinated Abraham Lincoln, despite warnings from me about the specious nature of the sources.
          The paper bombed.

          by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:14:46 AM PDT

    •  Sure It Will. This Is a Conquest of Enlightened

      society that's going on. Given the looming resource and population issues, and the trends in concentration of wealth and power, this battle is not going to last for generations to come.

      by Gooserock on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

•  Global Warming has been cancelled.

  There's a volcano in southern Chile that's having the biggest eruption in decades, possibly centuries, and if Chaiten keeps on going like it is, there might be enough ash in the upper atmosphere (the initial plume managed to make it to the edge of space, 100 thousand feet), there might be massive global cooling akin to 1816.

  At the moment, the eruption is bigger than Pinatubo in 1991, and is approaching that of Krakatoa in 1883 and Novarupta in 1912 (which was bigger). Chaiten has been pumping ash and rock into the atmosphere for the better part of a week, the plum, while nowhere near the initial hight, is still several miles in hight and is wreaking havoc all over southern South America.

  Usually volcanos don't get lots of press coverage, but this might be different.

  by YoursTruly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:45:05 AM PDT

  •  Well

    if it will get me through another year without having the roof torn off my house in the Fall, then churn baby churn. In a year or two though, it just means more GHGs.

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:01:35 AM PDT

  •  Some Purty Pitchers of Chaiten and A Pump

    See here.

    Chaiten might give us cool weather for a bit but more than that it points the way to a green future.

    "Fierce geothermal fluid flow and debris exiting from the well precluded Welaco Well Analysis Group (Welaco) from completing temperature/pressure/spinner (TPS) surveys in the open hole."

    Sure sounds like one might be precluded all right.

    So why didn't they wait to tell us stockholders when they were no longer precluded?

    Maybe they were worried that some drillers had gotten occluded in  the casinos in nearby Winnemucca and were therefore not inhibited in discussing being precluded.  As every dang fool here surely knows, when you drive north from Winnemucca to Paradise Valley there are road signs warning you to watch out for wild jackasses.  There is no shortage of wild jackasses in bars and casinos.

    Waiting for such preclusions takes a lot of patience.  Been waiting over half a century for some preclusions in another project now owned by this outfit.  Got tired of waiting to tell the truth.

    Geothermal can be exciting when it blows - except to ol' Dobbins I guess as the picture given before shows.  But it's awful hard to tell when it will.

    http://www1.investorvillage.com/...

    Nevada Geothermal is, of course, a Canadian company. Americans prefer to burn coal.

    Best,  Terry

    by terryhallinan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM PDT

•  You asked what we could or should

  do as we see the climate changes effecting us.

  I'm a poor person, renting on a farm, and I'm older than most of you.

  Three years ago we stopped buying propane. !st off we could no longer afford it. Second we are incrimentally turning our energy use into electrical. So no we don't have a usual stove (its propane), or heater for the house. Instead we bought a radiator looking, oil filled electrical heater and put a fan behind it to maximize the warmth in the whole house.

  We also don't have hot water now. The hot water heater is a propane one. What water we use we heat on an electric hot plate. In summer we are increasingly making containers to set and heat in the sun. Summer is nice because we have a kiddy pool that makes a great bath with sun warmed water. We are lucky to be on a well water system that runs off of electricity.

  Now the big deal is to make a wind mill to generate some of that electricity so we can have more money to save and buy some solar panels. For us it is a slow as you go kind of thing.

  We are totally unable to just go down and buy a hi-bred car, or order a wind mill with all the gadgets and have it all nicely installed by next Tuesday. But we are making an effort.

  Kinda like when I was of a child bearing age, the decision was made not to have more than one kid. And that is how many I had. (back then the health of the planet depended on lowering the population of the earth.

  The deal is that many of us can't do a heck of alot but talk about what needs to happen to make this planet a bit more livable, now and in the future. But all of us can do something. Each and dveryone of us can. ie: in one generation the number of kids to a couple (in the USA) dropped from the normal 4-6 and I think its arounf 1.5 now.

  So tell the less fortunate what is possible for them to do, even if its a small amount and things can change dramatically.  

  by socks on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:01:52 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't

    sound like you're just talking to me. Those all sound like solid steps you've taken with more planned to lower your fossil fuel consumption and thereby energy bills, and becoming more self sustaining in the bargain.

    by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:10:33 AM PDT

  •  one suggestion since I empathize

    you can set up an "air conditioning" unit by running an ordinary fan over ice water and directing the breeze. The tempature drop is 10 degrees and could be more depending on variables. There are commercial units but home made works fine.
    The only catch is the ice production but in northern states I would consider an old fashioned ice house. (showing my age)

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:18:27 AM PDT

•  PS

  That is a savings of +-400 gallons of propane a year taken off the national use of propane.

  by socks on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:04:20 AM PDT

•  tomorrow is an essay on hospital surge, rationing

  and tough choices.

  Speaking of sharing information, the background articles for it are here, and a media summary is here.

  by DemFromCT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:10:45 AM PDT

•  Re: Footnote 1

  in the main post. This statement was slightly reworded at Dr Bowen's request to more accurately reflect his intent. Any resulting confusion is my sole responsibility and not his.

  by DarkSyde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:21:13 AM PDT

•  Science is Doomed Without a Soul

  I am no anti-science or anti-technology Luddite.But science applied to human good is almost as equally threatened by those who diefy science or rigidly defend their views as it is by the right wing religious wingnuts.

  Dr. Rick Lippin

  by Rick Lippin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:31:58 AM PDT

  •  your comments make no sense Dr. Rick

    I'm not sure what you mean, but "deification" of anything is a bad idea.  Science isn't something that can or should be "Deified", but the real scientists doing the real work have no problems separating their professional lives from their religious lives, if they choose to have one.

    by DMac5 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:02:58 AM PDT

    •  Many So Called Scientists Become Dogmatic....

      ......thus reminding me of inflexible religious zealots.

      This is what I call "deification" of a dogmatic scientific view or scientific paradigm which of course renders it exactly the opposite of true science which always and fiercely asks the next question.

      Rick Lippin

      by Rick Lippin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:25:08 PM PDT

      •  um,

        How do they enforce this "dogma" on others?

        How do they prevent others from upsetting their "dogma"?

        How can anyone prevent anyone else from "fiercely asking the next question"?

        How can anyone control science?

        by Lenny Flank on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM PDT

        •  Enforcement of Scientific Dogma Very Prevalent

          Lenny Flank-

          Surely you must be kidding? What world are you living in? You must know that especially recently scientists who dare to buck the prevailing scientifics paradigms get both shunned and worse not funded.

          In the past they were sometimes executed.

          What say you? Thanks.

          Rick Lippin

          by Rick Lippin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:35:03 AM PDT

  •  the moral capacity of humans is unrelated to

    one diety.
    Humans have developed "morals" around the world based on a variety of Gods.
    What is worth exploring is the similar notions of morality widespread amongst the great diversity of nations.
    Many of these beliefs are based on how we as humans whould treat our family, our neighbor and the stranger and the destitute.
    These are aspects of the human animal therefore there should be similarities.  Many of these beliefs are based on paternity assurance and relatedness.  There quite a few wonderful books that explore the human as a "moral animal".
    Science can never be doomed, it is a natural pursuit of the human.  Science as we know it is the accumulated knowledge of humans through time, people may interfer with it from time to time, but the humans ever thirst for understanding the world they live in.

    by TexMex on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:14:39 AM PDT

    •  The original statement appeared to be heading

      towards making some point about Mengele or the Japanese scientists in Manchuria or Soviet scientists and Stalin's experiments.

      However, science is a tool and even with personification, a tool cannot be blamed for the uses to which it is put.

      OTOH the conflation of religion with science is problematical as gravity and the speed of light and speciation all work without my belief. They would continue on with or without faith on my part.
      History is littered with various religions which have not survived, which gives rise to the assumption that scientific facts require no faith while religious facts are absolutely dependent on the faith of believers.

      by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

•  I'm going to introduce a series of eco-diaries

  The first appeared yesterday:My first Eco-diary:  The earth is Alive?  They promise to be both controversial and enlightening.  They introduce an aspect of complexity science that has taken root and is bearing fruit. They will be applying the new ideas from comlexity science to the environment. I invite comments and hope the comments will be based on what is there rather than what is not.

  by don mikulecky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:38:59 AM PDT

•  Science is not just about global warming

  Under the current administration, funding to the NIH has been pilfered.  It's as competitive as it can be for grants for young investigators to begin the research that saves real lives in the US!  I hope that renewing the vigor of the NIH is an important part of the next president's policies.  I hope immigration policies also reflect the reality that some of the best US research has been done by foreigners.

  by DMac5 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:57:53 AM PDT

  •  not just science

    also in healthcare provision; in one year with only 100 New Start Federally Qualified HealthCare Centers funded, only one was located in the South while 10 were located in Alaska.

    The proportional need of the geographical areas reveals the absurdity of the whole funding process.  

    by entlord1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:41:49 AM PDT

    •  who needs healthcare?

      America doesn't have a healthcare crisis!  I know not of what you speak.  

      I hope Americans realize that we are at a crossroads, and electing John McCain might take us down an irreversible path toward second-class nation status.  All of the things that we used to be the best at, we are allowing to slip!

      by DMac5 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:19 AM PDT

•  Cool challenge for science bloggers

  Skulls in the Stars has initiated a challenge to science bloggers which has caught some attention.  I think it would be great to look at some of the variety that could occur from this:

  The idea is this: you take a classic paper in your field, preferably pre-WWII (but this will vary by discipline).  You blog about it.  Put it in historical and scientific context.  

  I think this is a great idea.  If you do it before the end of May you can submit it for a permanent page over there.  I would love to see classics from any field of inquiry.  

  by mem from somerville on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:08:56 AM PDT