21st Century Snake Oil

In a backlash against technological advancement, numerous anti-scientific beliefs are enjoying a surge in popularity -- even among the wealthier and better-educated segments of the populace.

Recently, I was chided by a couple of good friends for my response to their posting on Facebook a viral video purporting to show popcorn kernels popping when several ringing phones were placed next to the kernels. I was the "spoilsport" who pointed out the video was fake, and that were such a feat possible, the implications would be far more severe and noticeable. Extensive studies have proven cell phones do not cause any health problems, but vague fears of the effects of cell phone radiation (like a previous generation had for microwaves) abound in the popular imagination.¹

I have noticed, too, that the similarly-aged friends and acquaintances I know who pay attention to horoscopes, visit psychics, or believe in other supernatural ideas often do not accord much or any importance to the most mainstream supernatural belief: religion. Americans, especially young Americans, are less tied to religion than ever before -- nearly a third of people under age 34 do not claim a religious identification.² Could it be that these alternate beliefs are filing a vacuum of order in people's lives in the absence of religion? A report this week released by the National Science Foundation revealed that belief in astrology is on the rise, and that younger Americans are fueling this trend.

Beyond just supernatural ideas, anti-scientific beliefs, i.e. magical or non-rational concepts, are enjoying a high profile lately. They are driven by anything from yuppie fads (e.g. an obsession with "super" foods and alternative medicine) to superstitious celebrities (e.g. "energy" necklaces en vogue with athletes).

Chill Out

My column on global warming in this past Tuesday's Diamondback uses several threads I've discussed on this blog in the past (the lack of scientific literacy surrounding the subject, pitfalls of alarmism). I expanded on those ideas to also address the fallacies of specific alternative energy proposals.

Sample grab:

...before wholeheartedly embracing ethanol as the fuel of the future, we should consider whether large-scale production of ethanol is feasible or if it even reduces net greenhouse gas emissions. (A recent, much discussed article in Science suggests it would not.) We have already seen how the ethanol-driven demand for corn has created an across-the-board rise in food and fertilizer prices, an unintended but serious economic consequence.

Columnist Ali Adler ("Path to Our Future," Feb. 12) advocates solar and wind power, but she fails to consider neither measure feasibly matches our country's energy needs. We should resist the urge to throw millions of dollars in government subsidies to ideas that won't work. (Personally, I think nuclear power is the way to go, but I will save that argument for another time.)

When it comes to tackling global warming, we should not, like the people of Emerald City, be blinded by "green" glasses. Some ideas are good, but most are over-reactionary or counter-productive, often both. Restraint may be our best option.

Click here to read the entire column. Then be sure to check out a rebuttal by a Ms. Rachel Bergstein, who says that "the current climate crisis is...a question of justice and equity" which "necessitates immediate action".

The "Goracle" Strikes Again

Congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. I don't really think he should have won.

Nothing personal--I think Gore is a smart, experienced, and competent leader who probably would have been a good president. But a couple things trouble me about his win.

You could start by explaining to me the connection between giving PowerPoint slideshows about global warming and the award's ostensible purpose: the promotion of world peace. And I'm already reluctant to embrace an alarmist approach to global warming, an initiative which will likely gain more traction thanks to Gore's Nobel win. (For more on my take on global warming, see this previous post, or better yet, a superb article called "Chill Out" which ran in the Post last week).

It also seems to me that the Peace Prize, unlike the other Nobel awards in literature, physics, et al., is much more of a "fad" prize. The winners in those categories all appear to be octogenarian scientists or authors or economists who are recognized for their contributions several years after they were made, after sufficient time has passed that the magnitude of their accomplishment can better be appreciated. Not so with the Peace Prize, which seems inclined to more often make statements about the here and now.

Meanwhile, there is another current situation that is sorely deserving of the world's attention: the Burmese monks protesting the brutal military dictatorship in their country. The junta in Burma is already holding one worthy Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest; they have prevented a democratically-elected government from ruling; they have engaged in vicious acts of torture, rape, and a host of other human rights abuses.



When the monks defied the junta and peacefully marched in public, thousands of ordinary citizens joined in, marching with the monks and serving as "human shields" against soldiers and police ordered to beat up or even shoot protesters. This inspiring struggle is still unfolding, and it could do with all the publicity anyone is willing to give it, so that the Burmese junta is held accountable for their actions. (For more details on the horror, see here, here, here, and here, for starters.)

...So, not to take anything away from Mr. Gore, who has had a remarkable career since he withdrew from the contested presidential election of 2000, but with a host of other worthy issues around the world in need of recognition, his just wasn't the name I wanted to hear announced on Friday.

Update 10/14

My friend Nikhil wrote to me defending the Nobel committee's desire to bring attention to global warming. In response to the "Chill Out" article I cited above, he said "I don't think it's right to base environmental policy judgments simply on cost. It's too utilitarian and undermines the point that you're actually trying to change something that is really hard to change." Nikhil also pointed out that "climate wars...actually happened this year in Africa--people were fighting for now-scarce arable land."

After writing this post, I came across a good article by Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine:

"In any case, global warming is not the result of environmental sin; it is the result of human progress creating another commons problem. We do not need to "lift global consciousness"; we need to find a cheap, low-carbon source of energy. I have no doubt that man-made global warming is an economic and technical problem that an inventive humanity will solve over the course of the 21st century."

Amen. Read the whole thing here.

On Global Warming, Let Cooler Heads Prevail

NASA Chief Michael Griffin apologized today for his controversial remarks last week when he said in a radio interview: "I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. [But] I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

Though he realized belatedly the minefield he was walking into, I have news for Griffin: I agree with you. I like to think I'm not an anti-science Luddite, so I hope you believe me when I say my beef with the global warming alarmists is about how climate science has been interpreted in the public dialogue.

Griffin was spot on when he said today about the global warming debate "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical." Given the poor level of insight that most politicians (and indeed, the public as well) have about climate science, I am extremely wary about the productivity of a political situation.

After all, it seems like "global warming" to most people means something bad that happens from buying Hummers and voting Republican--and if neither bad habit is curtailed within the next few years, we're all going to die. News flash, people: a warm weekend in January 2007 isn't a doomsday symbol, it's an "anomaly", i.e. a good day to have a picnic outdoors.

While we're in a period of warming right now (which, for the past 40 years or so has been fueled by greenhouse gas emissions), I don't want to hear anyone breathlessly exclaim how this year is hotter than last year or five years ago--that is statistically irrelevant.

Some obvious facts are too often overlooked. How many people know that global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer are two entirely separate issues? Or that the Earth has experienced warming and cooling in the past, cyclically and over long periods of time (hundreds of thousands of years)?

So yes, global warming exists. We should be working to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, for both environmental and geopolitical reasons. But that doesn't mean succumbing to the hysteria that has enveloped the global warming debate. Our planet is a strong and fascinatingly complex system, and it is not one so unstable that anything we do in the near-future is going to have a permanent, "tipping point" effect.

Whatever needs to be done to adequately address global warming (and I don't think that entails anything drastic), I don't want to see economically unfeasible pipe dreams pursued, or worse yet, see Sheryl Crow's "one square of toilet paper" rule enacted.

My sentiments may come as an inconvenient truth to some political agendas, but I think the use of scare tactics with regards to global warming is disingenuous and ultimately unhelpful.

Graphic: Neatorama.com

Dawkins' God Delusion

This past weekend I finished reading Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion. Dawkins, for those who haven't heard of him before, is a well-known British biologist most famous as an outspoken advocate of evolution. (Yeah, he's the scientist spoofed on South Park having a relationship with Mrs. Garrison.) The God Delusion, which came out late last year, has been a fixture on the bestseller list and has raised a lot of controversy for its polemical criticism of religion.

I share his viewpoint that believing in the supernatural is irrational, and that religion is too often granted immunity from criticism. Dawkins' book is full of great quotes from people ranging from Douglas Adams to Thomas Jefferson that humorously buttress his points. Who knew, for example, how much that champion of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, detested the influence of the religious right?

The actual substance of the book, however, is uneven. As much as Dawkins is a witty and engaging writer--regardless of your views, the book is readable throughout--I doubt he accomplishes the stated goal of his book: to convert believers into atheists.

I've said before that telling people they are idiots and simpletons, or worse, is not generally the best way to persuade them of your cause. Dawkins' methods, which include using statistical improbability to show the improbability of God's existence, are not going to have the slightest effect on someone who does believe in God.

Dawkins attacks religion for engendering fundamentalism, bigotry, hostility to science, and other negative influences. Of course, it's easy to knock down such targets as the Taliban, homophobia, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc., but everyone is aware of these externalities and yet most people continue to believe in God!

A chapter on how meme theory might explain why religion is so widespread throughout human cultures was the least interesting. I guess it sounded too hypothetical. More appealing to me was Dawkins' later argument that humans can act morally without religion, which I agree with. His explanation for this is that we have nurtured altruistic genes (which better our odds of survival) through natural selection. Yet of course, while atheists are definitely capable of being good, that does not mean an absence of religion is the end of all conflict. (The aforementioned South Park episode featuring rival groups of atheists battling each others brilliantly showed how human nature inevitably leads to conflicts.)

Another point I agree with Dawkins on, though much less polemically so, is on the religious indoctrination of children. Dawkins repeats ad nauseum how a child should not be referred to as a "Muslim child" or "Christian child" because at that young an age he does not have the capability to decide for himself the matter. (No one would call a child a "Republican boy" or "Democratic girl".) I don't have a problem with children being brought up in the religious tradition of their family, but surely at some age it only makes sense that a child be free to decide for himself whether he wants to be part of that religion, another religion, or no religion at all.

Dawkins is at his best at the end of the book when he evokes the wonders of science to show how scientific inquiry reveals the universe to be even more awe-inspring and amazing than people (especially religious fundamentalists) give it credit for. I wish he had chosen to emphasize this approach more, because I think it would be the one that's most convincing.

A book like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, which explains the scientific method and promotes rational thinking, or even the one I'm reading now, A Short History of Nearly Everything, does more to enhance science's stature and increase the general public's scientific interest. That is the best way for Dawkins to achieve his goal of a less fundamentalist, less anti-science world. Unfortunately the tone of his own book does not help.

Theory: Eat Fetuses, Gain Superpowers

It's been a while since I've mentioned anything from my bi-weekly column in the Diamondback, the University of Maryland's independent student newspaper. Topics I've written about recently include money management for students and cultural cliques overdone. In my column today, I adapted a recent blog post to discuss the presence of science in pop culture. Sample grab:

...we have segments of the population dismissing evolution because they've never seen a monkey turn into a person, or because they think a "theory," to quote Isaac Asimov, "is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." (Recall the evangelist from Borat who insisted "I is what I is!") Pro-evolution people, meanwhile, make their job more difficult when they disrespect their opponents' religious convictions. For some reason, telling people that they are idiots with vivid imaginations isn't the most persuasive argument.

We have people who think that unless we all switch to hybrid cars ASAP, an ice age will wipe out coastal cities (and benefit the Republican Party, of course). We also have people who think that climate change can't be real because one guy wearing a lab coat out in Fargo, N.D., disagrees. (Hey, he sure looks like a scientist.) Thus, they say, there must be no consensus on global warming.

We have opposition to stem cell research based on "pro-life" beliefs, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of surplus blastocysts are routinely discarded by fertility clinics instead of having even a fraction of those used to try and save lives. We also have people who would mislead you into believing that the only thing standing between a disease-free world is big, bad President Bush. (I particularly enjoyed the South Park episode which showed the late paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve gaining superpowers from eating dead fetuses.)

Click here to read the whole article.

Popularizing Science

This weekend, on my sister's recommendation, I read Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi. Rest assured, the voyeuristic suggestion implied in the title is merely a narrative device that complements a thorough, thoughtful examination of genetic variations backed up by a lot of historical and cultural research. Although some of the science presented is at an advanced level (ectoderms, morphogens, and melanocytes are likely above the head of the average reader), it is all explained simply enough to be understood.

But my intent here is not to write a book review, but rather to introduce a subject that troubles me: the absence of science (meaning natural science, not social science) as a popular aspect of our cultural knowledge. Social sciences get their proper due--the shelves of bookstores overflow with bestsellers in history, politics, business, etc.--but never the "hard" sciences like biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

I am especially concerned about the dearth of scientific content aimed at the public that is both interesting and accessible to a broad audience. This is a concern given the insufficient scientific literacy of the average American, and the very real implication this has on public policy issues. I needn't remind anyone about the debates over stem cell research, global warming, teaching of evolution, and the space program, to name a few.

In fact, as the previous sentence illustrates, the only time that science seems to permeate the public consciousness is when an issue like evolution or global warming gets politicized and distorted. The media gives only a short shrift to anything that can't be framed by X-versus-Y screamfests.

Recall, for example, what surely must have been the most under-reported story of 2006: the suggestion by NASA in December that water has been flowing on Mars as recently as in the past decade (and perhaps even now.) Water! On Mars! Not in some distant galaxy a long time ago or on some moon on the outer reaches of our solar system, but right now on our very own planetary neighbor! This revelation was good for about one day in the headlines.

Publishers and producers are always looking for the Next Big Thing to push. How about something that has a built-in appeal to our sense of wonderment, something that allows us to discover more about ourselves and the world we live in? Those TV documentaries on the Discovery Channel are a good start, but we all know nobody watches those unless there's nothing else on.

Where are the 2007 Carl Sagans, some sort of physicist version of Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, and Steel) or biologist version of Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) who will pen the latest title all the book clubs want? As evidenced by the success of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything a couple years back (which I hope to read soon), people are very curious about science. Combine a layman's earnestness with a charismatic, talented scientist-author, and I think you've got the formula for a *gasp* educational hit.

If any of you know of interesting, accessible books, magazines, websites, etc. written about natural or interdisciplinary sciences, please pass the recommendation on to me--and to others! That would be a real favor. The more that science enters into the public discussion, the better we as a society will be able to make informed decisions.

High Flying Hubble

Great news today: NASA has announced that it will send a shuttle mission to rescue the Hubble Space Telescope, only recently left for dead. I say this with no small amount of pleasure because it is such surprising news--in the past few years, the HST program had become marginalized for a number of reasons, including a priority on the International Space Station, President Bush's Mars idea, and the Columbia space shuttle disaster.

I have always believed the HST to be vitally important not just because of its scientific impact--it has helped determined the age of the universe, and furthered understanding of dark energy, for example--but because of its appeal to the public. Those breathtaking pictures of deep space that everyone knows and loves have contributed significantly to the public's support (emotional support yes, but more importantly financial support) for space exploration.

I mean, let's face it, anyone from my generation was born at least a decade after the last Apollo moon landing. Since then, what else in the field of space exploration has been able to get people excited, especially in the 1990s and 2000s after the novelty of the space shuttle wore off?

As a result of today's decision, the Hubble will be repaired and improved in 2008 and will remain operational at least until 2013, when its successor will be launched. Props to NASA for making the right decision.

View of the Eagle Nebula pillars	View of the Tarantula Nebula

An Intelligent Court Decision

Good news out of Dover, PA today as a Republican, Bush-appointed judge laid the proverbial "smack down" on intelligent design advocates.

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory," [Judge John E.] Jones wrote in a 139-page decision. "It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

In his decision, Judge Jones explicitly stated that "intelligent design is not science" nor should it replace science because of its reliance on the existence of an unprovable supernatural creator. The Post's David Brown and Rick Weiss have written an excellent analysis of Jones' ruling. While anti-science Luddites will no doubt be back soon with yet another assault, I hope the forcefulness and scope of this week's Dover decision will set the precedent for future such cases.

CB Archive: "An Evolving Understanding of Our Origins" (Aug. 13 2005)

An Evolving Understanding of Our Origins

I just returned from vacation to catch my Tivo recording of the recent History Channel special "Ape to Man", a terrific and timely new documentary chronicling the development of human evolutionary theory. The program covers the span of over 150 years, from pre-Darwinian ideas to the realization of man's common ancestry in Africa and the importance of the use of tools.

Rather then offering just a dry, encyclopedic recital, "Ape to Man" focuses on the chronological advancement of scientific thought on the subject. Key moments are reenacted, from the finding of Neanderthal fossils in Germany in the 1850s up through the famous discovery of "Lucy" in 1974. The scientific history is interspersed with vignettes featuring superbly costumed and cosmeticized actors dramatizing situations like hunting, fighting, and utilizing fire. This may sound cheesy, but surprisingly enough, it is all done so well and fits so neatly into the flow of the documentary as to be completely engrossing.

Any mention of evolutionary theory these days would be remiss not to notice this is a time when anti-evolutionists are gaining momentum by pushing the idea of "intelligent design". This concept has been in the news a lot as of late, drawing apparent support from President Bush and being touted as an alternative to teaching evolution in the classroom.

"Intelligent design" holds that the complexity of life is so great that it could only have been overseen by a supernatural force. There are two ways to interpret this--one, of course, is that this is just a nuanced rewording of the creationist position. In this respect, the idea of "intelligent design" is just a subtle but so far surprisingly effective assault on science and on public education. The idea of uncertainty in the current scientific viewpoint, however, is a reasonable enough idea. There is a bottomless supply of questions to which science yet has no answer. In the context of establishing a basis for scientific thought, however, the idea is fallacious.

Consider that the essence of science is a constant, millennia-old progression of our ability to understand our world. We are always striving to improve that understanding. Scientific explanations are made to the best of our ability based on the ascertained information we possess. Introducing intelligent design into the classroom does a great disservice to science, for the idea is not a scientific one. This is not a debate about whether there is or is not a God, so don't let that topic, irrelevant to the matter at hand, distract you. It's that science is not, as a letter to the LA Times recently pointed out, about points of view.

In the decades and centuries to come, we will almost certainly refine our ideas about our origins. "Ape to Man" did a great job, I thought, in showing how the "evolution of evolution" was in no way easily contrived. In addition to the requisite inspiration and perspiration, scientists had to overcome many missteps (and even intentional falsehoods) to arrive at the current theory of our origins. Even now, science is still trying to solve the unexplained. Intelligent design, though, can never provide any answers, and it still begs the questions of "why?" and "how?" Furthermore, the faux-security it provides cheapens the value of the rational scientific thought that is supposed to be a cornerstone of education.

Here's the beauty of science: if an idea is flawed, it will be cast by the wayside, and we will be better off for abandoning it. If the idea is tested and strengthened, then we all go to sleep feeling more confident that yet another great mystery has been solved by the might of human ingenuity. Regardless of the outcome, that's called progress. So to all challengers, bring it on!

NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet

Rocket science doesn't come easy these days. Following the February 2003 Columbia tragedy, NASA called off all shuttle missions while the disaster was investigated and the shuttle program itself was reevaluated.

Finally, after 29 months of no launches, Discovery took off on Tuesday. Immediately, problems were noticed--most serious of all, a recurrence of falling foam debris, almost the same size as that which brought down Columbia. Thankfully, the Discovery appears not to have been seriously harmed and the crew should not be in any jeopardy for the rest of its mission.

However, with this latest setback, NASA has once again grounded the space shuttle fleet. "Until we fix this, we're not ready to fly again," said shuttle program manager Bill Parsons.

After the Columbia disaster, NASA spent over $1 billion in trying to fix the shuttle--which, according to President Bush's vision, is due to be retired in 2010 with the completion of the International Space Station. What is now evident is that there is still much work left to be done, and we are unfortunately not ready to take that next step. NASA will now return to square one while its public image takes a beating and people question the worth of manned space exploration itself.

On that point at least, the answer is obvious: yes, it always has been, and always will be worth it. In light of the space program's current troubles, it's worth noting that July 20 marked the 36th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Back in 1969, using computers no more powerful than today's simplest handheld calculators, we were able to send two men to the moon and bring them back home safely. Let that serve as our inspiration to proceed, then, to do the things "not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Don't Stymie Stem Cell Research! (Part II)

To clarify a question raised from a comment on my previous post, the president's current law prohibits the use of embryonic stem cells fertilized after 2001; the House bill seeks to overturn this law. And while it is true that there are many people who oppose stem cell research, President Bush cannot count on partisan support in this issue. Prominent Republicans such as Ron and Nancy Reagan, Sen. Orrin Hatch, and Sen. Arlen Specter are representative of a vast multitude of Americans who realize that stem cell research is necessary to save lives.

I think that the people who are opposed to this research are being misled by inaccurate terms, misinformation, and propaganda. Last week, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter published a fabulous essay entitled "The 'Pro-Cure' Movement". This is a must-read, informative article which stated the case for stem cell research brilliantly.

"It's simple enough," says Atler, "reproductive cloning (to create Frankensteins), no; embryonic-stem-cell research (to cure diseases), yes." That basic summation statement needs to be pushed into voters' minds, because it's one that most people can agree with.

Alter also exposed a hole in the conservatives' strategy of tying stem cell research with abortion:

The stem-cell debate has been linked to abortion, as if depriving science of the use of these cells somehow extends "the culture of life." But here the "pro-life" position should argue for therapeutic research. Under Bush's stem-cell policy, 400,000 surplus blastocysts at fertility clinics are eventually thrown in the trash instead of a few thousand being used to enhance life. To be intellectually coherent, Bush would have to shut down all in vitro clinics, depriving millions of infertile couples of the chance for a child. Fat chance.

Also, in backing up my claim above that this is an issue that does not fall along partisan lines, Alter also cited a survey conducted by the Republican Main Street Partnership that found "support for stem-cell research even in very conservative districts" (emphasis added). Now that's encouraging news! Perhaps there's still room for optimism in hoping this debate reaches the right outcome.

Don't Stymie Stem Cell Research!

The first President Bush (#41) vetoed over forty bills during his four-year stay in office. The current president, by contrast, has not yet made use of that power. But the dry streak may soon come to an end. George W. Bush may be about to make a terrible mistake with his threat to veto legislation funding stem cell research. Recently, 50 House Republicans broke with Bush to help overturn a presidential moratorium from 2001 on research using cells from human embryos.

The move appears to have support from both sides of the aisle in the Senate, which has yet to consider the bill. Among the Senate's chief advocates of embryonic stem cell research is Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania who just underwent treatment for Hodgkin's disease. Sen. Specter has stated the effect of a presidential veto would be "simply atrocious" for the millions of people suffering from diseases that might be cured with new research.

Unfortunately, Congress will most likely be unable to override a veto if Bush sticks to his "pro-life" script. Here, his logic is almost perverse. The academic argument for the advancement of science aside, what could be more in line with "pro-life" than developing the ability to save millions of American lives by treating and curing illnesses such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's?

People are in pain and are dying while the cure may be within our grasp. It is unconscionable to pass on this opportunity. Like the discovery of penicillin and the polio vaccine, new discoveries from stem cell research could be the next great scientific achievement for the benefit of all mankind. I sincerely hope that the president will reconsider his position on the issue, and come to see that the use of embryonic stem cells in research is legitimate, even and especially by his "pro-life" ideology.