Science policy
Science, lies, and stolen emails
As this is a blog about medicine, I haven’t written much about global warming. Moreover, until a few months ago, I was a bit of a skeptic about the science behind global warming. My skepticism was centered on a few key points that I didn’t feel had been adequately addressed:
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked. Read More...
- First, I was unconvinced that current temperatures exceeded that of the Medieval Warm Period, a period of warm climate in the North Atlantic from about 800 to 1300. During this time, the weather was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize Greenland and to support a settlement in Newfoundland.
- Second, California glaciers (yes California has numerous glaciers), like Palisade Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges were only about 700 years old, so obviously (to me), it’s colder today than it was before these glaciers formed.
- Third, the earth is just so complicated, it might take hundreds if not thousands of years of data to see any real trends.
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked. Read More...
Harold Varmus interviewed on C-span
May/11/09 07:59
Yesterday morning, I was listening to Harold Varmus being interviewed live (interspersed with listener calls) on C-SPAN Radio. For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Varmus, he is currently the co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1989. In other words, Dr. Varmus has all of the credentials of a scientists, if not one of the great scientists of our era.
I have been unable to find a transcript of the program, but a couple of points from the interview were particularly memorable to me. First, he made a full-throated support of vaccination of children, and made a diplomatic criticism of the anti-vaccination movement. The second point that stuck with me followed a call from an individual who had one of those “my friend was dying of this, and they went to this website and was cured of that” stories. In this case, the caller said a “friend” of hers was suffering from diabetes (not sure how bad or what type), and her friend went to some website (I was driving, so I didn’t have a chance to write it down) that told her to switch from a high carbohydrate diet to one with lots of proteins and fresh vegetables. Only this diet would “cure” the diabetes. Of course, my thought when I heard this story was, “well, switching to a low carb diet may have been the reason.” Read More...
I have been unable to find a transcript of the program, but a couple of points from the interview were particularly memorable to me. First, he made a full-throated support of vaccination of children, and made a diplomatic criticism of the anti-vaccination movement. The second point that stuck with me followed a call from an individual who had one of those “my friend was dying of this, and they went to this website and was cured of that” stories. In this case, the caller said a “friend” of hers was suffering from diabetes (not sure how bad or what type), and her friend went to some website (I was driving, so I didn’t have a chance to write it down) that told her to switch from a high carbohydrate diet to one with lots of proteins and fresh vegetables. Only this diet would “cure” the diabetes. Of course, my thought when I heard this story was, “well, switching to a low carb diet may have been the reason.” Read More...
Obama's science policy
Today, President Barack Obama gave a speech (audio version can be found here) to the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s prestigious science advisors. The speech reaffirms his campaign promises regarding science policy (how refreshing that a politician actually follows up on promises made in the heat of the campaign) and follows up on his executive order to reverse George Bush’s ill-founded partial ban on stem-cell research. Below are a few key points of the speech that deserve repeating.
At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been. And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today.
Federal funding in the physical sciences as a portion of our gross domestic product has fallen by nearly half over the past quarter century. Time and again we’ve allowed the research and experimentation tax credit, which helps businesses grow and innovate, to lapse.Read More...
Our schools continue to trail. Our students are outperformed in math and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Korea, among others. Another assessment shows American fifteen year olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to nations around the world.
Obama & Science
It was an issue that did not drive polls or voter behavior. It was an issue that did not bring a lot of interest from policy wonks or political pundits. But science is one issue that has significant impact on individual, cultural, and national growth and security. If one takes a long-term strategic view of America, investment, education and training in science will profit America financially.
The Bush administration led a war on science, especially in the areas of stem-cell research and global warming. Even in areas such as the teaching of creationism in schools, the Endangered Species Act, and NASA, there is a profound anti-science attitude exhibited by the current administration. Economic security, as well as national security, result from innovative and competitive scientific and technological leadership.
But now Obama is the President-elect, and I am convinced that there will be a significant change in direction in America’s science policy. In early October, Obama released a letter that clearly states his positions on the Federal government’s role in science. He intends to appoint an individuals to provide advice and establish policy on science and technology. He wants to remove any attempts to “distort or ignore scientific research.” This is a clear first step in rebuilding the country’s scientific position. Early in the campaign for president, he answered several questions posed by scientists, which outlined his point of view. Read More...
The Bush administration led a war on science, especially in the areas of stem-cell research and global warming. Even in areas such as the teaching of creationism in schools, the Endangered Species Act, and NASA, there is a profound anti-science attitude exhibited by the current administration. Economic security, as well as national security, result from innovative and competitive scientific and technological leadership.
But now Obama is the President-elect, and I am convinced that there will be a significant change in direction in America’s science policy. In early October, Obama released a letter that clearly states his positions on the Federal government’s role in science. He intends to appoint an individuals to provide advice and establish policy on science and technology. He wants to remove any attempts to “distort or ignore scientific research.” This is a clear first step in rebuilding the country’s scientific position. Early in the campaign for president, he answered several questions posed by scientists, which outlined his point of view. Read More...