WRITING IN PROGRESS

Featured
*

“Sciencegeek Fundamentals”
Hopefully, a growing collection of (unconventional) essays on things you need to know to call yourself a sciencegeek (or something like that).

01 An Introduction to the Scientific Method, by way of Chewbacca.
02 In Which we Learn that the Alien Hypothesis is Worthy…
03 In Which We Discuss Expert Peer Review and a Panda Named Steve.
04 In which a puzzle is not a puzzle, and is instead a scientific revolution.
05 In which an inflatable pool shows us why media often gets science wrong.

“Lizzie Popperfont and the Collider Whale Tale”
An ongoing children’s novel that covertly centers around the “Scientific Method”: Also includes that ever popular plot device – secret synchrotrons disguised as massive whales.

01 Paperclips and Breakfast. | 02 The Groaning Room. | 03 The Collider Whale.
04 The Superposition Effect.

Assorted Clips
I publish a little bit here and there. Mostly stuff that fits in the category of science humour. Another portfolio site here.

McSweeney’s – (favourites) 1, 2, 3 | Boing Boing – (favourites) 1, 2, 3
The Walrus – (favourites) 1, 2, 3

Sciencegeek Fundamentals #5: In which an inflatable pool shows us why media often gets science wrong.

February 23, 2012
sciencegeek fundamental
Leave a Comment

Essay No. 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

With all of the various notions of the scientific method in mind, it’s also good to access how the general public might view science information and hence gauge its level of science literacy. Here, it is probably obvious that the public’s knowledge of science tends to forget or even ignore the various nuances behind the philosophy of science. For example, how often do you think a person considers the slow meanderings and convoluted interplay between hypotheses and evidence when reading about the latest discovery? All the more understandable, when one acknowledges that most individuals obtain their science news through rapid collections of soundbites, a reality that is now normalized in the culture of media. And so, to explore this a little more, we need to take a look at this image:

Yes, that is one kick-ass inflatable pool, and here, a little context might help.

In the summer of 2009, my hometown of Vancouver experienced a small heat wave. It was very hot and humid, and my two young kids were quite miserable about the whole thing. Consequently, I had the brilliant idea of getting an inflatable pool for our backyard. This was genius; the entire household was fully on board; and to Hannah and Ben, I suddenly seemed like the best Dad in the world! Before we knew it, we were going hunting for inflatable pools, which naturally led us to a local toy store, where lo and behold, marketing geniuses that they are, the store had conveniently placed all of their inflatable pools front and centre.

In this selection, we saw the pool that you see in the picture above. It looked, quite frankly, awesome, and, if you can believe it, was priced at only twenty dollars. Needless to say, we bought it immediately and full of excitement, took it home to set up. It was here that something odd happened. In essence, when the pool was inflated it looked a little different from the box. In fact, this is how it turned out.

Of course, being a scientist and all, my rational mind was racing and trying its hardest to come up with hypotheses that could explain what was going on. Why does the pool look so tiny? It is because my children are massive? Was the photograph on the box taken in a land of hobbit-like youth? Did I not inflate my pool enough? It was all very bizarre, but at the end of the day, the explanation was simple: in that in the world of advertising, it was sometimes permissible to use misleading images as long as the text for dimensions is clearly printed on the box, and as long as a fallback statement, such as “object in box may not be as appears in image,” is included.

For us, however, the purpose of this story is to highlight how science tends to be viewed by the public. What one finds, is that what you see, hear and read tends to be a modified version of reality. In other words, science reporting is often not altogether right, with a tendency to be exaggerated or sensationalized. Occasionally, it can even be downright false, as any example of pseudoscience can attest to. However, when you look at how media works and the caveats it has in place, it’s really not that surprising that this is happening.

Firstly, as mentioned before, in the arena of media, time is of the essence. The soundbite is key. This means that in the world of audio and video, something that is quick and attention grabbing is paramount to attracting your audience. In the world of writing, this means that an over indulgence in space or word count is often frowned upon. Furthermore, strong loud voices are coveted. Unfortunately, when you think about it, how scientific research is done is neither quick nor even generally attention grabbing. Science moves at a pace that is at best unpredictable, and at worst very very slow. As well, most of the research is punctuated by things that aren’t necessarily exciting to the average person – it’s not at all loud – and yet those elements are often key to fully understanding and appreciating the merits and fallacies of a particular discovery. It’s like what Sir Isaasc Newton would say: “You are standing on the shoulders of giants…” and we cannot place limits on how many shoulders we overindulge in.

Another thing that makes media and science different, is that one prefers to have obvious endings, where the other technically never really ends. Media prefers to express itself in friendly and familiar structures – like a story. Perhaps this is why we read about science in ways that suggest a finality. We see so many headlines like “Cancer Cured!” that we begin to wonder whether to believe in such proclamations and indeed even trust in the science behind it. The thing is: the scientific method is akin to a cycle, where attaining of information continually progresses. Consequently, forcing an ending to acts of discovery doesn’t really work and presents an inaccurate picture of what is actually going on.

Then, there is the issue of validity. With science you have the awesome power of expert peer review in your corner. It’s not perfect, it can be slow, it can influenced by various pressures, it might not even reach a consensus; but overall, there’s probably not a better way to figure out whether a piece of knowledge is valid or not.

In media, things are very different. With “good” media, where journalistic integrity and ethics is upheld, the writer doesn’t always get it right. This is not necessarily the fault of the writer: they have deadlines, they have other beats to cover, they have an audience they need to satisfy, and they may not yet have the experience to fully consider how science culture itself is part of the narrative of that science discovery. Furthermore, objectivity is key in journalism: you always try to present “both sides of the story.” However, this can also translate to equal billing for viewpoints that expert peer review would normally consider marginal, inconsequential or even discredited.

In other types of “less good” media, you run into the issue where the communicator has lots of clout (as in numbers of readers or viewers) but frankly no credibility. This lack of credibility could be due to the individual not having the appropriate background knowledge to fully understand what they’re talking about, or in a more cynical take, it could be the individual talking in a certain way because of influences that deliberately distort the facts. Examples of this can be seen in some celebrity endorsements or in the rantings of an influential but biased blogger.

Finally, we can also address the paradigm thing. It’s not that unusual for people to take a viewpoint that maybe we’ve got it wrong all along, and that perhaps, at the end of the day, we’ll discover something that will ultimately completely change what we know of a particular topic. You see this in climate change, evolution, earth origins debates – what if all the scientists are wrong? Here, the mentality is essentially feeding off the idea of paradigm shifts. However, what people tend to forget is that a paradigm shift in science is really very very rare and very very special. It is truly a remarkable thing, so remarkable that there are many who feel that the word “paradigm” has been used so frequently in popular culture that its strength has been greatly diminished.

Unfortunately, all of these considerations simply mean that it’s worth being careful about how you take your media. In the end, I think it’s really important to remember that there is this disconnect between how science is done and how it is represented. In fact, in many ways, it is wariness of this distinction that truly differentiates a sciencegeek from a non-sciencegeek.

(1st draft)

The science of winning Rugby World Cups

February 23, 2012
*
Leave a Comment

Apparently, it’s pretty simple- you need big players who have played for a while.

Paper (link to first page pdf)

How they won Rugby World Cup through height, mass and collective experience. Adrien Sedeaud, Andy Marc, Julien Schipman, Muriel Tafflet, Jean-Philippe Hager, Jean-François Toussaint. Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090506

Abstract
Objectives To investigate the evolution of anthropometric characteristics in World Cup rugby players and identify elements associated with performance.

Design Age, weight and height were collected for 2692 World Cup rugby players as well as rankings in each World Cup, and collective experience of winners, finalists, semifinalists and quarter finalists in comparison to the rest of the competitors. Anthropometric parameters were compared according to age and position (back and forwards).

Results From 1987 to 2007, forwards and backs have become heavier by 6.63 and 6.68 kg and taller by 0.61 and 1.09 cm, respectively. The collective experience of the forwards’ pack is a value increasing with the final ranking attained, as well as the weight of forwards and the height of backs.

Conclusions For all Rugby World Cups, the highest performing teams have the tallest backs and heaviest forwards with the highest percentage of collective experience.

Via io9.

The fraction 1 over 473684210526315789 is pretty outstanding!

February 23, 2012
*
Leave a Comment

1/473684210526315789 = 0.000000000000000002111111111111111113222222
2222222222243333333333333333354444444444444444465555555555555555576
6666666666666666877777777777777777988888888888888889100000000000000
0002111111111111111113222222222222222224333333333333333335444444444
4444444465555555555555555576666666666666666687777777777777777798888
8888888888889100000000000000000211111111111111111322222222222222222
4333333333333333335444444444444444446555555555555555557666666666666
6666687777777777777777798888888888888888910000000000000000021111111
1111111111322222222222222222433333333333333333544444444444444444655
5555555555555557666666666666666668777777777777777779888888888888888
8910000000000000000021111111111111111132222222222222222243333333333
3333333544444444444444444655555555555555555766666666666666666877777
7777777777779888888888888888891000000000000000002111111111111111113
2222222222222222243333333333333333354444444444444444465555555555555
5555766666666666666666877777777777777777988888888888888889100000000
0000000002111111111111111113222222222222222224333333333333333335444
4444444444444465555555555555555576666666666666666687777777777777777
7988888888888888889100000000000000000211111111111111111322222222222
2222224333333333333333335444444444444444446555555555555555557666666
6666666666687777777777777777798888888888888888910000000000000000021
1111111111111111322222222222222222433333333333333333544444444444444
4446555555555555555557666666666666666668777777777777777779888888888
8888888910000000000000000021111111111111111132222222222222222243333
3333333333333544444444444444444655555555555555555766666666666666666
8777777777777777779888888888888888891000000000000000002111111111111
111113222222222222222224…

Via Futility Closet.

Amazing image of a huge movable mass of fish.

February 22, 2012
*
Leave a Comment


.

Since submarines began roaming the depths in World War I, sailors and oceanographers, who use sonar technology to map seafloor topography and identify ocean life, have regularly run into “acoustic ghosts”—inexplicable bodies of movable mass that sometimes rivaled the size of a city—writes ocean engineering professor Nicholas Makris in IEEE Spectrum(Aug. 2011). Affectionately called UFOs (unidentified floating objects), these sonar readings were blamed on factors as various as deep-ocean mountains and changes in water temperature. Every time a theory emerged to explain the phenomenon, however, it was quickly shot down.

In 2003 Makris and fellow scientists aboard a research vessel just south of Long Island, New York, discovered that the UFOs were composed of hundreds of millions of fish—massive gatherings on a scale never before documented.

Image by Wayne Levin. Article at UTNE.

Epidemiology of traumatic head injury in Asterix and Obelix comics.

February 21, 2012
*
Leave a Comment

Title:
Traumatic brain injuries in illustrated literature: experience from a series of over 700 head injuries in the Asterix comic books (pdf of first page)

Reference:
Marcel A. Kamp, Philipp Slotty, Sevgi Sarikaya-Seiwert, Hans-Jakob Steiger and Daniel Hänggi. ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA. Volume 153, Number 6, 1351-1355, DOI: 10.1007/s00701-011-0993-6

Abstract:
Background
The goal of the present study was to analyze the epidemiology and specific risk factors of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the Asterix illustrated comic books. Among the illustrated literature, TBI is a predominating injury pattern.

Methods
A retrospective analysis of TBI in all 34 Asterix comic books was performed by examining the initial neurological status and signs of TBI. Clinical data were correlated to information regarding the trauma mechanism, the sociocultural background of victims and offenders, and the circumstances of the traumata, to identify specific risk factors.

Results
Seven hundred and four TBIs were identified. The majority of persons involved were adult and male. The major cause of trauma was assault (98.8%). Traumata were classified to be severe in over 50% (GCS 3–8). Different neurological deficits and signs of basal skull fractures were identified. Although over half of head-injury victims had a severe initial impairment of consciousness, no case of death or permanent neurological deficit was found. The largest group of head-injured characters was constituted by Romans (63.9%), while Gauls caused nearly 90% of the TBIs. A helmet had been worn by 70.5% of victims but had been lost in the vast majority of cases (87.7%). In 83% of cases, TBIs were caused under the influence of a doping agent called “the magic potion”.

Conclusions
Although over half of patients had an initially severe impairment of consciousness after TBI, no permanent deficit could be found. Roman nationality, hypoglossal paresis, lost helmet, and ingestion of the magic potion were significantly correlated with severe initial impairment of consciousness (p ≤ 0.05).

Sample Data:

Wallace’s Condensed Primordial Soup – no artificial life, no MSG added, no cholesterol and no regrets.

February 20, 2012
*
Leave a Comment

Wallace’s Condensed Primordial Soup is made from Earth-grown organic ooze and a special blend of prebiotic compounds. For four billion years Wallace’s recipe has remained the same with hundreds of amino acids, no artificial life, no MSG added, no cholesterol and no regrets. Later life forms love it!

For sale and via 826DC. Note that Wallace is in reference to Alfred Russel Wallace.

For my Dad

February 15, 2012
*

- – -

“My Dad beat up Bruce Lee…”

This, actually, is a true statement.

O.K., technically, the statement is mostly true – because depending on which of my Dad’s friends you ask, you might learn that it’s probably better to say that he “pushed Bruce Lee around” as oppose to “beat him up.” Still, regardless of which version you believe, it all sounds pretty impressive. Until, of course, you learn that my Dad was 10 at the time, whereas Bruce was about 8 years old.

This is why I often use this statement when I give talks about science and society. It nicely encapsulates the weaknesses behind describing things (such as science things) with only a soundbite – without the full context in place. The fact that my father beat up Bruce Lee has two completely different interpretations depending on your knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of that additional piece of context.

Secretly however, I also use the statement because I happen to think that it does make my Dad sound incredibly impressive (even if it does imply that he might have been a bit of a bully – although also possibly the true reason why Bruce Lee went on to become an expert in Kung Fu).

But that is because I know that my Dad was incredibly impressive. He had led a full and interesting life – a life that enriched others. Often, I’d hear stories of his youth, where he’d tell us that he was a stellar basketball player winning many school games. He would tell me that his favourite book as a child was The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling, which may of had something to do with being an avid boy scout. Indeed, he even rose to the ranks of Queen Scout (sort of like the Jedi of all scout ranks), and once got to shake the Queen’s hand. You should also know that my father was also a skilled civil engineer – so much so, that I’ll bet he was main reason why his particular track of Vancouver’s Skytrain is especially quiet and efficient. Finally, there is the story of when he was sick and admitted into a hospital in Hong Kong. Here, he was treated by a pretty nurse – a nurse he would return to and ask out, a nurse he would later date, marry, and begin that family life he so cherished.

These details would only skim the surface of why I consider him an inspiration. All told, he was a formidable engineer, a loving husband, a brilliant father and a great granddad. Quite simply, he was a truly wonderful human being.

Unfortunately, his life wasn’t always so wonderful. In fact, during the last ten or so years, life was quite rough. In 2000, he was formally diagnosed with Spinocerebellar Ataxia (SCA3), a neurodegenerative genetic disease that affects certain coordination abilities, often in a slow but drastic fashion. Over the years, there was a gradual but noticeable decline in his health. First, he would be wobbly, then he would need a cane, next a walker, and finally a wheelchair. It would become a challenge to write, speak, eat, even sit straight. It was, needless to say, heartbreaking for us all to see this unfold.

When Dad first learnt of his condition, it came to pass that I would also need to get tested for SCA3. This was because this particular disease is classified as an autosomal dominant, which meant that there was a 50% chance of Dad passing the defective gene to me. Furthermore, this test would also divulge my own fate in this matter. Essentially, by agreeing to such a test, I could find out whether I had received the good or defective copy.

During this whole episode, I remember thinking that this was, in a way, strangely fortuitous. Here I was, a geneticist, who revels in science education, and I had actually been granted an opportunity to experience firsthand that most iconic of all science ethics lessons – the genetic test. I even distinctly remember saying to myself, “This is so cool,” and saying this even before I found out that I had tested negative for the disease.

But nowadays, I don’t feel the same way. During those last few years, seeing what my Dad had to suffer through, has made me seriously re-evaluate that original sentiment. It certainly didn’t seem so cool anymore. Which again demonstrates how perspective truly is king. Indeed, depending on my mood, I might feel all sorts of different things.

I might be frustrated by the glacial pace of scientific research, and the challenges of various medical support systems. Or sometimes, I would feel real anger at the political and cultural backdrops that have stalled certain scientific discoveries, the kind that could have helped find treatments and/or helped increase comfort levels. Here, I know that SCA3 falls under similar pathologies to other CAG repeat neurodegenerative diseases, and as such, is a prime beneficiary of what some view as contentious stem cell research. But even in these dark moments, mostly, I feel like the best reaction is one of bitter inspiration, a kind of relentless feistiness that I need to compel me to do justice to my father’s memory. Something to fuel my heart to do something, anything that my father would deem worthy.

Of course, sometimes it’s just nice to feel nostalgic. To think of my Dad when he was able to walk and run and dance and hold us up. I don’t know why, but it’s strangely comforting to yearn for this better time, before the talk of tests, and before the genetic haunting. Fittingly, with these words from The Jungle Book, even Rudyard Kipling might agree:

“I will remember what I was, I am sick of rope and chains -
I will remember my old strength and all my forest affairs.
I will not sell my back to man for a bundle of sugar cane;
I will go out to my own kind, and the wood-folk in their lairs.
I will go out until the day, until the morning break -
Out to the wind’s untainted kiss, the water’s clean caress;
I will forget my ankle-ring and snap my picket stake.
I will revisit my lost love and playmates masterless!”

And although I’m not a religious type, I’d like to think that wherever Dad is now, he is walking again. This makes me feel a little bit better, but right now, truth be told, mostly I feel sadness.

.

Dad… I will love you always, and will be forever grateful for your presence in my life.

I will miss you terribly.

Your son, David.

- – -

John Kar Kee Ng, born March 8th, 1935, passed away on February 10th, 2012. May he rest in peace.

You can make a donation to the BC Ataxia Society using this  online donation form (there is a field on the online form to make the donation in memory of John Ng)

Harper is (scientifically) disappointing to say the least…

January 24, 2012
writing
1 Comment

With this important piece over at the Globe and Mail, it seems timely to reprint this commentary I wrote and published over at Chris’ Intersection Discover blog (May 3rd).  Don’t even get me started on the pipeline business…

- – -

Why the Harper Majority is a Step Back for Science – Let Us Count the Ways

In case you missed it, last night saw the Canada election deliver a Conservative majority. It was aninteresting and historic vote for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is that now the Harper government is in a position to do pretty much as it pleases, given its position of majority power in both the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate.

As is the norm for any democratic action, this is good and bad depending on your perspective and ideals. Those who make their homes in the business or economic front generally see the result as a positive; whereas those who value fairness, ethical government practices, and social issues tend to look upon the election as a daunting and frustrating setback. In this mix, however, is the scientific point of view. And speaking as a Canadian scientist, I want to use this space to make the case that all things being considered, this is a fundamentally bad moment in history for Canadian science.

To do this, let’s access how the Harper government (not the “Government of Canada” as it was once officially called) has performed so far (in the science context anyway).

And let’s argue for this in a rational way. We are after all scientific folk. In fact, let’s apply the good old rubric of looking at the claim, providing a reason, and then presenting the evidence for this stance.

First up is our claim: let’s just go with something direct:

The Harper Government is bad for Science.

As for coming up with a reason, it’s actually fairly straightforward. Here, we’ve seen repeated examples that would demonstrate a clear lack of understanding science culture, as well as actions that often undermine the very notion of scientific literacy. Sometimes, you get the sense that science just isn’t important to this government, and on occasion it even feels downright inconsequential.

But, of course, this wordy reason can’t stand on its own verbiage. We need concrete evidence for our claim, and to do this, it’s probably easiest to focus on a number of key points that demonstrate Harper’s modus operandi.

Point 1. The Harper government is not terribly scientifically literate.

There’s a few examples of this (also see point 2), but let’s simply draw attention to the appointment of a Minister of Industry, Science and Technology who waffles on the science of evolution. In case you don’t know his name, it’s Gary Goodyear: and in essence, his role in government is meant to be the primary driver on pushing and representing how science is funded, courted, guided, and basically done in Canada. Although an architect of many a cut to science funding in times that arguably need more scientific innovation (see 4 for more), he was and still is noted as a controversial figure when in 2009, the Globe and Mail asked him to share his stance regarding evolution. To this, he replied, “I’m a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.”

Now from a scientific point of view, this type of statement is mildly troubling – you would hope that at least the Minister representing science would have more eloquent words to say on this subject. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case as illustrated with his further comments on the matter when pressed again during a television interview. During this incident, he chose to proclaim his belief in evolution, but continued with this very odd and ludicrous description of what evolution is:

“We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment.”

2. The Harper government has managed to make Climate Change science an ideological issue.

You’ve actually seen a lot of this already in American politics, but nowadays there’s also a Canadian version. Here’s how it works:

In general, science is fairly particular about the way it is done. The method is built to thrive on objectivity and it is ultimately based on the things we see, record, and analyze. It isn’t perfect, since the concept of a paradigm can exert influence, but the evidence it builds on still has to meet some pretty tough criteria – certainly much more stringent than other epistemologies, or other ways of knowing. Put another way, scientific evidence is not suppose to be swayed by ideological or partisan lines.

Despite this, Harper’s politics have warped the science of climate change into one of partisan debate. All other Canadian political parties take the science at face value, and build from it. Not so with the Conservatives. This is inherently disrespectful to the scientific community, as it suggests that we can make decisions concerning climate change in a place where scientific literacy has no currency, whereby the overwhelming scientific consensus is treated as nothing more than an interesting and suspicious footnote.

As a result, Harper runs the country on the pretense of whether one can trust or distrust the scientific evidence, without actually debating the actual technical strengths and weaknesses of the climate science data currently presented. Harper runs the country based on messages that economically sound promising, but are environmentally unsustainable, and have strong repercussions which conveniently will take form long after he is retired. Above all, he places an emphasis on nurturing a subtle form of climate change denialism and has made it part of the conservative ideology. From a scientist’s point of view, this is probably not the best way to formulate important policies – on “feelings” as oppose to concrete evidence. In essence, we can say that I may not be a betting man: but if I was, I’m pretty sure that the scientific community is the best place to get our odds.

Now, one might argue that this is not Harper’s stance at all. It would appear that the official take would proclaim the government’s official backing of the “fundamentals of climate change science.” However, as always is the case, actions speak louder than words. As evidence of this, you only need to keep track of the Harper’s record on climate change. Since obtaining its first minority government in 2006, the Conservatives have essentially moved away from Canada’s commitment to Kyoto, and has repeatedly undermine climate change talks (to the point of being consistent winners of the “Fossil of the Day” award), part of which involves the continual setting up of disappointing emission targets.

In 2009 the goal was to cut carbon emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 3% below 1990 levels by 2020. The goal was later changed in early 2010 to 17% of 2005 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 2.5% above 1990 levels.

The three most populous provinces disagree with the federal government goal and announced more ambitious targets on their jurisdictions. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia announced respectively 20%, 15% and 14% reduction target below their 1990 levels while Alberta is expecting a 58% increase in emissions. (Wikipedia, April 2011)

More troubling, is that Harper appears to not have any qualms about pushing his agenda in any way possible, and does so in a way that draws clear distinctions between party lines. In particular, is his flagrant misuse of Senate power to go against the democratic passing of a Climate Change Bill (Bill C-311).

Here, a quick lesson in Canadian government procedures might help. Essentially, when Canadian laws or Bills are put on the table, they need to go through a vote in the House of Commons. This is represented by elected members of government, such that the voting here is inherently meant to represent the “will of the people.” However, if passed, the law then needs to go through the Canadian Senate. This level of government is suppose to reflect a place of “sober second thought,” but historically, the Senate very rarely goes against the decisions made in the House of Commons. This is because Senate members are appointed, and therefore in principle are there to still respect the democratic underpinning of the House of Commons’ vote. However, in December 2008, Harper filled 18 vacant Senate spots with Conservative appointments, and has used this Senate majority in undemocratic ways – including the killing of the Climate Change Bill.

Still, there are other ways to force an ideology along: which brings us to point number three.

3. The Harper government has demonstrated a willingness to “muzzle” science.

In 2010, the release of Environment Canada documents showed that new media rules introduced by the Harper Government in 2007, with the aim to control the ability for Federal climate scientists to interact with media, had been responsible for what many of these scientists have called a “muzzling” effect.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent.”

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.

The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them. (Montreal Gazette, March 15, 2010)

This facet of Harper’s strategy is especially troubling. Science, as a whole, is a venture that best works when there is fluidity and an openness in how information is shared. Whether that is within the scientific community in the form of expert peer review, or back and forth between scientists and the general public or the policy makers as a dialogue of civic consequence, there is simply no commendable reason for this form of control. It should be obvious that discussions on Climate Change, which has obvious public importance, things shouldn’t be run like a corporation protecting its secrets and/or hiding information that veers away from the desired message.

4. The Harper Government is out of touch with science culture: scientists are driven by many things, and not always by the industry/business/corporate mentality.

Over the last couple years, we’ve seen examples where the Harper Government has consistently pushed research towards a heavy emphasis for applied sciences and industry, often at the expense of basic science. Whether this is via funding cuts to granting agencies such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (a bastion of basic science research), diverting such monies towards projects where business-related objectives are encouraged, or via restructuring of the National Research Council such that industry-related projects are given priorities, there’s definitely a method to his ways. Overall, this indicates a general ignorance of how scientific progress works – that is, it is almost always the discoveries born from basic research that fuel the future innovation necessary for applied benefits. Put another way, if Harper continues on this track to give himself quick political gain, he does so at the expense of future Canadian science. Even a small lull in basic research in the present could result in a significant lull in applied and economic potentials in the future.

As well, this constant patronage towards the business side of science also doesn’t necessarily reflect the intentions of the scientists themselves. Money and economics may be desirable things for scientists, but most often there are other stronger motivations at stake – including an aspiration to bring about positive change in the world, as well as plain old intellectual curiosity.

An example of Harper’s willingness to always give credence to the corporate line, is his Government’s poor handling of the recently diposed Bill C-393. Essentially, this is an episode where bad politics trumped good science. The good science in this case is the fact that there are very effective antiretroviral drug out there, which make HIV/AIDS a treatable disorder. Unfortunately, these are mostly priced too high for individuals in developing countries – countries where unnecessary death from HIV/AIDS is catastrophically high. The bad politics concerns a frustrating series of events that saw a Bill (C-393), designed to fairly and with monitoring facilitate production of generic drugs, get passed in the House of Commons (i.e. democratically given the green light); then was taken to Senate, where it was deliberately stalled for five days, in an atmosphere where misleading information provided by the pharmaceutical industry was being distributed to the Tory Senators; such that it was ultimately killed by default when the new election was called. The fact that the reason for this was ultimately because of the Harper’s Government willingness to patronize Big Pharma is extremely galling, especially when so many lives were literally at stake.

Conclusion

It’s important to note that science culture isn’t the only thing that drives a civil society. However, as a conduit for reasoned discourse and relevant information that affects local and global concerns, it’s obvious that science must not be taken for granted. Based on last night’s election results, we have every reason to worry about the Conservative majority, as the Harper Government has repeatedly demonstrated past activities that not only take science for granted, but treat it with a form of contempt. The Harper government has consistently ignored whatever sound utility the scientific endeavor can provide, and by doing so, has put the future of Canadian science at risk, as well as the elements of society that would have otherwise benefited from it.

In the end, this means that we must watch the actions of this Harper Government more closely; and to be vocal, to be active, and to do our best to hold them to account for their actions. Democracy has given Harper a mandate to govern as he sees fit, and for this there should be an element of respect as well as an element of opportunity. However, Harper should not forget that Canadian democracy is ultimately driven by the people of Canada. For that reason, I will be watching you closely. Scientists will be watching you closely. Canadians will be watching you closely.

Assorted Rays, Ranked According to Coolness. #geekhumour

January 17, 2012
writing
Leave a Comment

An old silly piece of mine originally published at MonkeyBicycle. (Yes, I know Ray Charles wasn’t included, but he’s the one Ray I respect too much to make fun of)

6.
Ray Romano

Is it just me or is this guy too funny? I mean, that thing he does with his TV mom and wife just cracks me up. Plus, he once made $50 million bucks in one season, which is totally cool, and is in no way the reason for putting him on this list. Too bad about the TV kid twins, though – I mean, what’s up with their foreheads being so massive? It doesn’t look natural.

5.
Cosmic Rays

These are the rays that gave the Fantastic Four their powers. But even cooler – in astrophysics, they are basically high-energy outer space particles that make their way to the Earth. How awesome is that! It’s like they’re all around all the time. Plus, I did some reading on them and found out that the most energetic recorded was 1020 eV! I don’t even know what an eV is, but its got to be pretty cool. Also, 1020 is one big number – that’s a one with 20 zeros behind it. Once in my car, I even tried counting to it, but only made it to 214. I think I could have made it all the way but True by Spandau Ballet came on the radio and I hate that song.

4.
Ray Bans

These sunglasses are as cool as it gets. Unfortunately, I already wear prescription glasses. This means that when I put on a pair of Ray Bans, I either have to put them right on top of my prescription glasses, or alternatively I take my prescription glasses off first, put the Ray Bans on, and then put my prescription glasses on top of them (I can’t see without them). Anyway, I don’t think this is how Ray Ban intended it, but I suppose this is why it’s not at the number one spot.

3.
Stingrays

How awesome are these fish? They swim with those kick ass pectoral fins and have a nasty serrated sting that – get this – is coated with toxic venom. I’m a bit surprised there’s no TV show for them – you know, like Flipper, except when you piss it off, it might kill you. I mean, if that’s not prime time then I don’t know what is. Or it could even be like a comedy because, did you know a Stingray’s eyes are on the top side and its mouth is on the bottom side? That’s right, people; the poor fish can’t see what it’s eating! Man, that kind of comedy just writes itself.

2
The “Re” in “Do Re Mi”

O.K. so not technically a “ray” – but this one rocks! First, am I the only one who thinks Julie Andrews was pretty hot back then? More so, when you realize that she’s playing the guitar for real in the movie – double score! On top of that, there the whole “drop of golden sun” line, which I’m guessing is in reference to that whole quantum physics wave-versus-particle thing – it’s a shame that whole subplot was edited out of the movie. Some nuclear explosions would have really taken that movie to whole different level.

1.
(Tie) Gamma Rays and X-Rays

I’ve decided that these two rays are tied for first place, because you know what? Sometimes, in physics land, they are actually the same thing! Although, you could probably care less since maybe that, in itself, is not that cool. But how awesome are x-rays? You can see your teeth and bones, for Christ’s sake! Plus, you have to wear lead aprons when you work with the stuff, and nothing say’s “ladies man” like a kicking lead apron. And gamma rays – did you know these are the babies that gave us the Incredible Hulk? Although what’s up with his shirts always ripping to shreds and his pants always staying together? I thought your gluteus muscles are supposed to be the biggest in the human body. Anyway, I’m not actually complaining – it’s not like the Hulk is hot like Julie Andrews or anything, although he does look like the sort of dude who would also have a problem with Spandau Ballet.

Sciencegeek Fundamentals #4: In which a puzzle is not a puzzle, and instead illustrates scientific revolutions.

January 9, 2012
sciencegeek fundamental, writing
Leave a Comment

Essay No. 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

About five years ago, a colleague (Ben Cohen) and I decided to conduct a little online experiment. Essentially, we thought it would be fun to host a puzzle, which involved the sequential release of some fairly bizarre pictures. The goal, of course, was to see if we could entice the denizens of the internet to play along – in other words, could they figure out what was the unifying connection between all of these strange things that they were seeing?

The formal start to this process involved the presentation of three images (shown above). This included: (1) a gorgeous picture of a fish, specifically one drawn by Ernst Haekel; (2) a picture of a robot masquerading as a cow masquerading as commentary on industry; and (3) the front cover of an Elvis Presley VHS tape (remember those?) called “It Happened at the World’s Fair.” We then gave this whole exercise the snazzy title, PUZZLE FANTASTICA, which was the sort of title that precariously walked that strange line where Ben and I thought it simultaneously awesome and stupid. Next, we added the tag line, “Do not click unless you are of reasonable intelligence,” and then we basically just sat back and waited [1].

What happened next was pretty amazing. Immediately, we got a lot of feedback and a lot of attempts at solving the puzzle. And, I should add, a lot of it was very sophisticated and, well, remarkable. But despite this ingenuity from our readers, Puzzle Fantastica did not get solved. And so, we released another clue… and then another. The fourth clue was a short movie of someone’s lawn covered with a few of those plastic climbing things that one purchases for small children, as well as about 100 European Starlings mulling through that same patch of grass. The fifth was some text, about a hundred words, which read as if it was the start of a children’s novel.

For each of these new clues, we saw new wonderful attempts at solving the puzzle, which interestingly enough, were often modifications of previous attempts. We also saw a huge increase in the number of participants, significantly fueled by traffic from other websites [2]. By the end of the exercise, we had managed to court several hundred different answers for our puzzle. However, despite this outpouring, none of these fine attempts had found the “official” answer. Still, we were so impressed with the effort and the diversity of what we saw, that we made a fancy graphic of the totality of solutions presented to us.


Click on image to see larger version.

As well, at the time, Ben and I were a little worried. When all was said and done, we realized that when we put up our “solution” (a play on the word CLONE), we would also need to recognize the fact that many of the readers’ answers were far more elegant.

Still, the whole process was sublimed. It was in many ways, a microcosm of the scientific method in action. What happened was that folks “saw something interesting” (our clues), and then they tried to fathom from these observations, a reasonable “reason why?” In other words, they were coming up with hypotheses: and their manner of testing them was waiting to see if the next clue would support or contest them. It was truly brilliant, and it was a nice testament to how creative a person’s mind can be, when driven to the prospect of trying to understand something. It was also turning into a great analogy that we could use for teaching purposes: “Look, it’s like the scientific method!” we both said.

Except that the analogy is even richer. You see, here’s the thing (and this is the first time we’ve admitted this): in truth, there was no solution.

That’s right. The whole puzzle was, in actual fact, a ruse. We were simply interested in seeing how a community can seemingly find wonderfully intelligent ways to connect odd disparate observations. And it worked like a charm. Too well, actually: we hadn’t expected such large numbers of participants which was a little stressful and also the reason why we decided to fabricate a answer that fitted but also one that hadn’t already been mentioned. It was as if we were forcing ourselves into a paradigm of sorts.

Which is fitting given what paradigms are in the world of scientific discourse. Here, Thomas Kuhn, the American Historian and Science Philosopher, famous for the publication of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” says it best. He wrote that science “is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions.” Furthermore, it is during those revolutions where, “one conceptual world view is replaced by another.”

What he was referring to was the idea that scientific discovery tends to work in paradigms. This is where there is an existing framework of knowledge that comfortably guides how observations are made, questions are asked, and how hypotheses are formed. However, history has shown that these paradigms can change, and because they are so fundamental, that change can seriously rock the boat. We’re talking the Sun being at the center of the Solar System not the Earth; Einstein’s work on relativity over Newtonian physics; Darwin’s Natural Selection over all of that God stuff.

Our Puzzle Fantastica, admittedly by accident, actually illustrated how consequential a paradigm shift can be. In that our participants would have obviously acted in a completely different manner and would have provided completely different responses, had they known that there was never an answer in the first place. That particular change in our framework of knowledge for the puzzle was, suffice to say, revolutionary.

- – -

NOTES

[1] Puzzle Fantastica #1: “Fish-Cow-Elvis” [do not click unless you are of reasonable intelligence]. Scienceblogs.com. (Assessed January 7th, 2012)

[2] Introducing Puzzle Fantastica. Boingboing.net (Assessed January 7th, 2012)

(1st draft)

Sciencegeek Fundamentals #3: In Which We Discuss Expert Peer Review with a Bit About a Panda Named Steve.

January 8, 2012
*, sciencegeek fundamental, writing
Leave a Comment

Essay No. 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

On a cold and miserable evening sometime during the fall of 2006, I found myself sneaking into a 4 star hotel and gate crashing an international science philosophy conference. Yes… I am that wild.

O.K. admittedly, this might not sound like the most thrilling of endeavours, and certainly not something that would beckon a Hollywood screen writer, but it was nevertheless quite exciting to me. Not the least of which was because this act of rebelliousness led to an opportunity to hang with a minor celebrity. This is someone, who if you took the time to google, you would discover him in various photo-ops where he is posing with folks as varied as Steven Pinker, President Jimmy Carter, and even Martha Stewart. As well, the word “posing” doesn’t actually do these photos justice: rather, these well known individuals are literally holding him up.

In any event, the celebrity I’m referring to goes by the name of Prof. Steve Steve, and the reason why he is always held is because he is, in actual fact, a small stuffed toy panda. However, he is also a true inspiration in certain scientific communities for reasons related to an interesting battle of words that has been occurring for the last decade or so.

- – -

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The above is a statement crafted by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle based think tank that primarily acts as a front to push the concept of “Intelligent Design” into public school science curricula. Since its release in 2001, the institute has also maintained a list of signatories, who are collectively referred to as A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[1]. In other words, this is a list of folks with advanced degrees who insist that evolution is a scientifically weak concept. As of December 2011, 842 signatures have been collected, and the Discovery Institute has often claimed that this exercise is evidence that evolution is, indeed, highly debatable as science; and that other views, specifically views that ultimately include intelligent design (and ergo creationism) should be entertained and validated within science education.

This, of course, is rather silly – if not altogether disturbing to those who are scientifically inclined. And so in response, the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) decided to launch its own statement to counter this awkward pseudoscience babble. Released in 2003, this one read:

“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”

And like the other statement, signatures were courted, and currently (as of January 6th, 2012), the total number has reached 1184 individuals [2]. Apart from the empirically obvious fact that the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism has fewer signatures, it is also worth pointing out two other significant differences between the two opposing lists.

Firstly, many have questioned the credibility of the Discovery Institute signatures. For instance, some argue that over the years, the signatures have often been inconsistently attributed (many titles are vague, university affiliations may be absent, current involvement in scientific activity suspect), and often signatories were not necessarily aware of the agenda behind the statement [3]. In addition, one also notices that only a small proportion of them actually have relevant biology backgrounds. In fact, in an analysis done in 2008, this was calculated to be just shy of 18%. In contrast, the same analysis determined that the robustly labeled NCSE list scored a much higher 27% [4].

Secondly, (and this is the brilliant bit) every signatory in the NCSE list is named Steve… Or Stephen, or Stephanie, or Stefan, or some other first name that takes it root from the name “Steven.” Put another way, the list would obviously be much much larger without this restriction*.

This is why the NCSE list is also known as Project Steve (an affectionate nod to noted evolutionary biologist and author, Steven Jay Gould, and yes, Stephen Hawking is on the list), and this was also why it was very exciting to meet with Prof. Steve Steve. You see – he is the project’s official mascot, and he is a lovely reminder of why it is important to invalidate those who would be inclined to create controversy around the science of evolution, be it for political or religion reasons.

For us, this whole exercise importantly illustrates another aspect of the scientific method. Specifically, this concerns the part where everyone gets to dump on you, or perhaps more accurately, the part where everyone – who’s an expert – gets to dump on you. In science terms, we call this “expert peer review.”

This is important because it dictates that scientific knowledge gets to be critiqued in a very particular manner. It gets examined in such a way, where one is left with a scientific opinion that:

(1) was based on the examination of tangible evidence, which is not only made publicly available for all to see, but it is also described in enough excruciating detail so that anyone can attempt to reproduce it (hence the existence of peer reviewed journals).

(2) was formulated by those who actually know what the hell they are talking about; and

(3) was backed by the most numbers of people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

In other words, this idea of expert peer review is good, not the least of which because not everyone in the general public has the necessary background to evaluate scientific claims and evidence. For instance, a non-geneticist may be hard pressed to fully assess genetic data; a non-computer scientist may be hard pressed to appraise the relevance of a climate model. As well, the reality is that it’s not that difficult for anyone to be convincing and still disingenuously utter the phrase, “and we have proof!” Which is why the rational protect themselves from such scams by relying on these communities of experts, who as a whole are vested in the scientific method, and who strive to objectively and publicly analyze such sentiments for validity.

Suffice to say, if you were a betting person, and you had to go with only one choice, it’s pretty clear that the Steves win hand down.


Me (and Janet, John, John, and Ben) with Prof. Steve Steve at an international science philosophy conference.

- – -

NOTES:

[1] A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. (Assessed January 7, 2012)

[2] Project Steve Website. (Assessed January 7, 2012)

[3] Doubting Darwinisms Through Creative License. (Assessed January 7, 2012)

[4] Project Steve: 889 Steves Fight Back Against Anti-Evolution Propoganda. Science Creative Quarterly. (Assessed January 7, 2012)

* For instance, on quick examination of the December 2011 edition, there are 10 individuals on the Dissent list who names would fit under the Project Steve criteria (all Stevens or Stephens). Given that this represents 1.19% of all the names on that list, we could then, by analogy, project that the NCSE could have easily produced a list of close to 100,000 names, had they not included the name restriction.

(1st draft)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers