Organic Matter - Science

Engaging ID or Just Studying Biology?

Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:30:55 -0700

The Associated Press would have you believe that Harvard is undertaking the unprecedented task of going toe-to-toe with the intelligent design. Obviously some individual scientists have chosen to speak out about the relatively merits of ID versus, well, science, but no research institution that I’m aware of has deigned to compare ID with evolution as part of its agenda. The AP article linked above seems to imply (without directly stating) that Harvard’s new research program is intended to study the merits of the two theories. It does this not only spending almost half the [short] article explaining ID, but also by titling the piece “Harvard Jumps Into Evolution Debate” (emphasis mine).

The thing is, if you look at the substance of the information given about Harvard’s new program, it doesn’t sound at all like it’s intended to look at evolution or intelligent design, but rather at the probable origin of life. Perhaps this doesn’t sound like a major distinction, but it’s important to recognize that evolution is not a theory of origins. Rather, evolution attempts to explain how the organisms born at the origin of life became the organisms on Earth today. The Harvard program discussed in the article appears to be more interested in how those initial organisms arose (hence the name of the program “Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative”).

All the same, I’ve got a hunch that if the scientists involved talk about ID at all, it’ll be while have a few laughs over beers after work.

Evolution and origins are always good topics for troll comments; let’s go fishing.

Reality Check

Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:06:28 -0700

While I’m pissing people off (see previous post), I’d like to give a blogospheric pat on the back to Pharyngula for having the balls to come out and say what we were all thinking. Or at least what anyone who doesn’t patently deny modern science should be thinking.

Ignorance = Bliss

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:04:18 -0700

I've avoided wasting my breath on the Terri Schiavo issue up to now, and I would continue to do so if it weren't for the following quote in an article about her recent autopsy:

The autopsy of Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding she was severely and irreversibly brain-damaged and blind as well.

[...]

Nevertheless, attorney David Gibbs III said Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, continue to believe she was not in a vegetative state and questioned the conclusion that she was blind.

I'm becoming more and more concerned about people's persistent willingness to utterly ignore scientific evidence that doesn't correspond to their pre-existing notions about the world.

At the risk of getting partisan, this seems as apropos time as any to plug fellow blogger Chris Mooney’s upcoming book The Republican War on Science. Obviously I haven’t yet read it (hence “upcoming”), but I expect that it will be worth checking out.

Tangled Bank #29 - The Natural History Museum

Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:09:46 -0700

Welcome all to Tangled Bank #29, and welcome especially to first-time visitors to Organic Matter. For those not familiar with it, the Tangled Bank is a semi-monthly collection of choice blogging about science, biology, medicine, or the natural world in general. Each edition of the Bank is hosted by a different blog, and this week it’s Organic Matter’s turn to take a stab at it. So here it comes! (Due to the truly massive size of this edition of the Tangled Bank – 40 entries!!! – I’ve decided to place the submissions in the extended entry; from the front page just click on “read more” below to see the hulking beast in its humungous glory.)

Science for Sale?

Thu, 12 May 2005 17:07:36 -0700

This is really disappointing to hear. When I was a kid, this guy was my idol.

A paleontologist who consulted on the "Jurassic Park" movies acknowledged that he delayed the announcement of a dinosaur find in Montana at the studio's request to help promote one of the film sequels four years ago.

The acknowledgment by Jack Horner was in response to a National Public Radio report Wednesday that looked at the promotion of the movie and the discovery in Montana of one of the largest Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons ever found.

I’m a little sympathetic to the view that altering the release date isn’t that big of a deal. A little. On the one hand, Horner freely admits that he altered the release date, and by all appearances the actual discovery date is legitimate. Actually, with respect to altering fossil discovery dates, a delay is the opposite of what one might expect to see. Finally, his delay raised a lot of money for a branch of research that is notoriously difficult to fund. There are much much more unethical things that one could do as a scientist.

On the other hand – and I’m quoting from a comment on the excellent thread at the aptly titled Adventures in Ethics and Science – “his reputation and credibility come from telling the truth. To the extent that scientists have a priveleged [sic] place in the public discourse, it's because the [sic] are perceived to be concerned with truth more than with selling stuff.” There’s also the always dangerous slipper slope – if we can lie about science – even if only to the press – then what can’t we lie about?

Alarmism III: An Example from Kilimanjaro

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:10:59 -0800

Big environmental news: the declining snowcap on Mt. Kilimanjaro provides conclusive evidence that climate change is really happening.

The summit of Kilimanjaro. Photo care of the Guardian.

Popular blogs, the Guardian, and even Reuters are reporting that the above photos of Kilimanjaro sans snowcap show the effects of global warming. I hate to provide fodder for wingnut denialists, but peer-reviewed research suggests that Kilimanjaro’s snowcap has been declining for 11,000 years due to a consistent decrease in snowfall that is unrelated to anthropogenic climate change (any wingnut denialists reading this, please read all the way to the bottom before wetting yourselves).

More Thoughts on Alarmism

Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:27:50 -0800

Yesterday I posted a link to Nick Kristof’s op-ed on alarmism in the environmental movement. I agree with the spirit of the piece, if not the tone, and I certainly wasn’t bothered as much as a lot of other people. I spent a lot of time thinking today about how people within the environmental movement, who presumably have a lot of ideas and opinions in common, might feel so differently about the same piece of writing.

The Gap Between Activism and Science

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:55:35 -0800

I stumbled across a Greenpeace website last night called "Kleercut". Essentially, they are promoting action against Kimberly-Clark (makers of Kleenex) because of their forest use practices. Unfortunately, what could have been an informative and convincing website leaves me only with a renewed conviction that a little knowledge can be a ridiculous thing.

Groups like Greenpeace cannot hope to make any progress merely with transparent outrage and without a thorough understanding of the science involved. In short, their web site is amateurish. Some specific examples that betray ignorance:

Extensive use of "boreal" as a noun, as in "The Boreal" (capital "T"; capital "B") to mean Canada's boreal forest. Boreal is an adjective.
Inflation of FSC as the "final word" in sustainable forestry, which I do not believe it is. I am shocked to see a group like Greenpeace treat it as such.
Oversimplification (i.e. "trees = good", "cutting trees = bad"). There is no mention or discussion of the actual logging practices that are employed by Kimberly-Clark's suppliers, there is only a theoretical bulleted list of everything that could conceivably go wrong in a cut. And then only if you were not only completely incompetent, you were actually attempting to drive yourself out of business.

Weird Science

Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:06:28 -0800

The Union of Concerned Scientists has published the results of a survey that was sent to Fish & Wildlife Service field staff regarding scientific integrity and political interference, and it isn't pretty. First of all, the survey was sent to 1,410 scientists, but less than a third responded; probably because they were told not to respond in either their professional or personal capacity.

Second, most of the respondents suggested that they have been involved in or know of incidents in which political influence has compromised scientific integrity. Perhaps it goes without saying, but if you doctor research to produce a desired result, you might as well not do the research in the first place - just do whatever you want and forget about the science. The only reason to pay for tainted research is to maintain the false appearance that your policy is informed by science. In other words, the only reason to do what policymakers appear to be doing is to defraud the public.

Word on the street is that this should hit the news tomorrow. I guess we'll find out then if the story has feet or not. (The survey and full results are available here.)

Some updates are below the fold.