This is where I will be organizing my ideas. One idea regarding science/technology versus religion:
Religion is not "in" science. The former is a beautiful feeling of faith and trust. The latter is a beautiful feeling of predicatable outcomes and peer-reviewed logic. Faith and logic are not the same thing, nor should they be. Each has a purpose.
Considering a fact's importance implies judgement. And you cannot judge a fact if you are 100% ignorant of the outcome that judgement produces. It comes down to inductive versus deductive logic. Because religion is a means and not an outcome, facts cannot be judged when applied to it. It all becomes opinion and faith.
In the end, Faith is inductive (what happens after we die?). Science, in it's truest form, is inductive as well.
Oscar Mathews
9 Aug 2009
Everywhere I look, everything I read, and just about everything written' confirms that it is a wonderful money-saving thing that that the government has done by canceling production of the new F-22 'Raptor' fighter. I don't see it that way. It is a dumb luddite-based decision. Yes, anti-technology, head-in-the-sand, but seemingly fiscally responsible decision. In reality, it is canceling the future to make believe we are paying for the present. And the amount saved is nonsensical. We could have had the remaining raptors built and operational for years just on the money that was recently distributed to executives at the banks we gave bailout money to. So this aircraft cancellation is all about posturing.
The F-22, it is complained, was designed during the cold war. Somehow that means that the design is mired in that period of strange political unrest. That is like saying that the hammer you have in your basement workshop needs to be thrown out because it was designed at a time when most things were put together with hammer and nail, not nail guns. The F-22 is a tool. Its use capability is amazingly versatile. And God, does it send a message to the rest of the world and to the future. That message is that the United States will dominate the air in any conflict that anyone gets involved in that includes the United States. Anywhere, anytime, when fighting breaks out, you will face the Raptor in the air...and nobody, but nobody, argues that there is a plane, or mix of them, that can match that tool in the air. And oh, do you happen to recall that we have a bomber in the inventory, still very well used, called the B-52? It was designed before the cold war, then dedicated solely to that 'almost' conflict. Amazing the usage we have found for that old 'hammer!' The argument has also been raised that the F-22 costs too much in maintenance to fly. What hogwash. It costs, even at the ridiculous figures presented in the press, about eighteen times less, per plane, than a B-52 to keep in the air!
A lot of people are talking abut retreat today. A lot of people are talking about not planning for future. It seems that the discussions are all about today, even though the hard-clad, cold-bleeding Republicans have supposedly been vanquished, and not tomorrow. From the space program through weapons procurement and even scientific research, we have been in retreat from a proactive plan that takes on the future. Instead we are 'going green' and heading into some 'bong considered' idiocy of pastoral life. The idea that we are somehow going to change this planet into one vast garden of Eden-type delight would be laughable, like Creationism, if there was not a grand, vapidly drooling, segment of our culture buying into it. Our future is in technology. Technology is why you have heat in the winter and air-conditioning in the summer. It is why you can talk to one another all the time, anywhere and at anytime. It is why you have clothing and shoes, and yes, packaged and then cooked food. Technology is simply another word used to replace the word 'better.' Whenever technology is considered something bad, and not better, then you have to go to the additional word 'perspective.' Nuclear weapons are great, if you have them, but terrible if you do not. Great if you are one of the people (in the countries that do have them) who control them, and maybe not so great if you are one of the people who do not, or do not trust the people who do. It is perspective of technology.
We live in a time where people who benefit from the stunning technological gains of the last two thousand years understand, and strive to do better. And we also live in a time wherein people who do not much benefit from the advances, hate them. We have a lot of problems with negative belief systems in the underdeveloped countries of this world. We have radical religion, which, amazingly, thrives in areas where technology does not reach very well! A great advance, also part of this technology, that should be used to combat this, is education, and gifted benefits of other technology. Instead we have gone at this great rift in belief systems with more destructive technology (bombs, mines and combat planes and troops). Hammers can be used to remove nails, and take apart, as well as build.
Yet, here I am proposing that the cancellation of the F-22 raptor is a big mistake. Amazing. But the analytical points of my argument are well founded. The United States is something special. It arose from a nightmare of warring nations intent on supporting the wealth of a few and the deliberate (and forced) slavery of the masses (physical and economical). The United States has pulled itself through and up above that, dragging much of the world with it! And here we sit. "Top of the World, Ma!" A line from an old Jimmy Cagney movie. We are on top of the world and we are having a terrible time figuring out what to do with the position we are in, for ourselves and for everyone else. And, in truth, since the cold war, we have been acting like a horse's ass, to our own people, for the most part, and the people of the world. We have to change all that, for our own survival and for that of the world itself. But we cannot change it from a position of weakness.
We need a six hundred ship Navy. We need a strong well-equipped Army and Marine Corps. We need domination of the air (and that 'for sure' includes the F-22 Raptor). And, with those things in place, we need to then do the hardest thing of all. We need to do the right thing, for us and for everyone else not so blessed. So, yes, I am an Emersonian Imperialist...of the right thing. And how is the 'right thing' decided upon? Therein lies the rub. Bush and Cheney had all the power in the world, and the good will of the planet (following 9/11) and what did they choose to do? The wrong thing. We voted Bush in (arguably), and he delivered very poorly. But we did not vote him in to do the right thing. We just kinda slipped him on by another mediocre candidate...twice. I think, however, we voted Obama in to do the right thing. And I think we were correct in our choice, if he can work through the morass of our Congressional Houses he was handed to deal with.
Obama was at the top of the heap in the cancellation of the F-22. I believe he is trying to do the right thing, but I do not think, or expect, that he is always going to be correct. We may well rue the day, with respect to this cancellation of a fighter contract, and pay a price in that future I write about. I hope not, but, more than that, the cancellation is symptomatic of our flight from science and technological advance. I think about this and I worry.
http://www.jamesstraussauthor.com
http://www.themastodons.com
http://from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com
Like Barak Obama I want to see a better, more perfect creation of a new America. Not one restored to her past greatness, as it were, but an America that exceeds her former greatness and rises to a new measure we can all be proud of and work hard for. Our future in this world now depends on how we work together and educate each other, building relationships that nurture and establish trust and mentorship in each other. We are all teachers of things we aspire to and we can share what we know and help each other to grow up, to find our place in this world. We can do so musch more if we all just begin to share our thoughts and energies in life. There are people in this world who need care and help to overcome their current situations that hold them back from their ability to become more than they are right now.
Nearly every system in America is broken and requires new thinking and creative work to progress to a new level. Here is but one very important example of our broken systems in need of new thinking and immediate action:
Life-saving scientific research is being stifled by a “broken” patent system, according to a new report.
“Blocking patents” are delaying advances in cancer medicine and food crops, says the Canada-based Innovation Partnership, a non-profit consultancy.
The full benefits of synthetic biology and nanotechnology will not be realised without urgent reforms to encourage sharing of information, they say.
Their findings will be reported next week to UK policymakers and NGOs.
The report is compiled by the Innovation Partnership’s International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property.
It cites examples of medical advances which have been delayed from reaching people in need - in both the developed and developing world.
These include HIV/Aids drugs and cancer screening tests.
The authors offer guidelines for a transition from “Old IP” to “New IP”, in which companies, researchers and governments recognise that sharing information is mutually beneficial.
“If we are to turn the atoms of publicly funded discovery into molecules of innovation… we have to make sure research avenues stay open,” said the report’s lead author, Professor Richard Gold.
“That doesn’t mean there will be no patents. It simply means that patents don’t become a barrier to early stage research.
“We do not want to end up in the same situation with nanotechnology that we are in with genetics.”
Fortress IP
The traditional view is that strong patent protection stimulates innovation, reassuring companies that it is safe to invest in research without fear of being stung by rivals.
Under this “old” model of intellectual property (IP), biotech firms raced to file a “fortress” of patents around newly discovered genes, closing off avenues of research for their competitors.
But this strategy is ultimately counter-productive for both industry and consumers, argues the report, not least because it deters grass roots research in universities.
Work on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that can cause breast cancer has been held up by legal disputes over patents held on the genes by Myriad Genetics, a biotech firm based in Utah, US.
Meanwhile, patients in European countries were denied access to the cancer screening kits, because national health services were unwilling to meet the cost.
The Myriad case is “an anatomy of old IP gone wrong”, said Dr Gold, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at McGill University in Montreal.
“Myriad is not the exception - it is the rule. Others are following and will continue to follow, unless we drastically change things.”
To facilitate sharing of information, he believes companies should be encouraged to form “patent pools”, allowing them to cross-license their technologies without losing out on royalties.
An example is the pool established by the international partnership Unitaid to provide HIV patients in developing countries with access to affordable anti-retroviral drugs.
Partnerships
Governments should develop public-private partnerships to conduct early stage research, and seek other ways to encourage innovation - via tax credits, for instance.
Meanwhile, patent offices must standardise their information gathering and do more to help firms in developing countries gain access to accurate patent information, the report recommends.
Reform now would ensure that society feels the full benefit of new fields such as synthetic biology, a discipline that could lead to cells with novel genomes which perform useful functions, such as making biofuels or absorbing greenhouse gases.
Dr Craig Venter, the man who led the private sector effort to sequence the human genome, has already raised eyebrows by applying to patent the method he plans to use to create a “synthetic organism”.
Fears that these patents may be too broad have been raised by the ETC Group, which campaigns for the reform of biotech patenting.
“The patenting system is not functioning. It is more of a barrier than an incentive,” said Pat Mooney, the organisation’s executive director.
“In pharmacy, we no longer see much discovery - we see firms playing safe and holding onto their turf.
“Meanwhile, in nanotechnology, we have seen some dangerously broad patents, which cut off whole areas of research.
“Patent offices must get up to speed with new areas of science, so they know exactly how much they are giving away.”
EXPERTS NEEDED: Battery prices for electric vehicles & water quantity in NYFrom:Bridge 2 Sent:April 27, 2009 3:10:20 April 27, 2009
Dear linda,Happy Monday! Have you told a friend, colleague or reporter about Bridge2Science? Simply send them to www.bridge2science.com for information.Here are two new requests for experts.----------------------------------------Battery prices for the electric vehicle industryName: Anonymous*Media Type: BlogExpertise needed:There is a department of energy program which has set a target goal for battery prices for the electric vehicle industry, I would like to get a credible source who can share certain information on how battery prices are currently and trending towards hitting commercially practical levels based on the US Department of energy assumptions. This could well be an ongoing initiative as prices change and subsidies also change, but it is a core issue of the electric vehicle ecosystem and developing this market and it could use that kind of expertise regularly offering in depth detail and analysis.Academic Discipline: EngineeringStory Deadline: ongoing*Anonymous requests mean that we will forward to your pitch/contact information to the writer.----------------------------------------Eco expert to discuss declining water levels in NYFirst Name: DeliaLast Name: StanleyMedia Type: Online newsMedia/Publication Name: Current.com / Current TVExpertise needed: I have lived and worked in the Carmel/Brewster NY area of Putnam County for 6 years and have seen the water levels in our local ponds, rivers etc decrease each year. This year they are VERY low- so I'm looking for an eco expert to discuss this with me for Current.com's Science section, of which I am the curator. I would prefer someone who lives in the area and would be willing to do an interview with me on camera as we explore these specific regions of land. I would ask them questions about the declining water levels, the causes and the impact on the environment. This interview/video would be posted on Current, promoted online and possibly played on Current TV. Thanks!Academic Discipline: EnvironmentStory Deadline: No Deadline----------------------------------------Thank you for being a part of Bridge2Science,Bob Conrad, MA, APRBridge 2 Science
In 1929 our world faced the depression era and we survived. Our Grandparents, suffered through hard times and created a new world for themselves by giving scientists and inventors the opportunity to develop new inventions that would later be used to revolutionize our industries. Cars were made and sold and several companies formed from an invention called "the motor."
Men wanted to fly in the sky like birds, so people invented airplanes. It was man's wish to fly to the moon and rockets were invented into space shuttles. Not only do we have astronaughts going to the moon, we have a space station, satellites and millionaires going for a ride (thanks to russia's rocket bus)
I believe it is time for the world to put their heads together and develop new technologies for the future of the industrial world. It's time for a new industrial revolution and this means, gathering ideas from scientists, inventors, space technology, and people like you and me.
We have millions of ideas running through our heads on a daily basis, but we never share them. We might write a few down in a journal, while others take the next step and try and make the idea work somehow.
I believe by taking some of the money from the stimulus package and giving it to people who can develop new technologies, this will help us create new jobs for ourselves in the future.
Today I received my first "idea" site, where a gentleman is asking for volunteer writers for his site.
He has several "green" inventions that are very useful to the environment. I'm hoping to gather more information while I research the internet for these new technologies. Twitter Me if you have an idea to add to this list!
http://www.twitter.com/theideagirl
http://www.greeninventions.info/
Here is a new video compilation that covers from the beginning of the racecar build to its use in promoting education. Efforts like this will attract young minds that will uncover new cleaner and more efficient power sources.
Professor Frank Furedi in an article entitled "More Than the Facts" (appearing in the April 2008 issue of Ode) argues that "the language of right and wrong has been displaced by the phrase 'the research shows' ".
It would be hard to refute the assertion that scientists and their disciples are capable of behaving dogmatically. Paradoxically, this most often unfolds in areas of inquiry where what is definitively known remains still in doubt, or in fields (e.g. anthropology, psychology) where the act of staking a claim carries with it inevitable political or philosophical implications.
However, Professor Furedi seems to skirt around some important reasons for this--even as he cites instances of agenda-driven 'science-chopping'. Recent US political events suggest why many people are choosing the language of fact over the language of belief.
Perhaps the single most important reason in the US for this as been that the Right (as in the political neo-con Right) has successfully sought to rhetorically (and illegitimately) capture the right in "right and wrong" as though an accident of the English language automatically verified their opinions and views.
They made this capture, those sitting in prominent positions of power and influence on the Right, in the name of an agenda that those who are not-Right find dangerous and ethically repugnant, hence a renewed interest on the part of the dissenting not-Right in basing what is to be believed on what happens--on checkable information--and not on what is wished to be true, or is believed-in on basis of a comforting mythology applied to situations outside its proper domain.
It is precisely the self-corrective aspect of science which "...still invites criticism and skepticism..." and renders its authority subject to scrutiny and critique that for many people gives science its authority.
Dogmatism anywhere is dangerous, science not excepted. I am as much an enemy of dogmatism in science as I am in anything else. (In fact in other media I have written against just this.) That being said, still, in politics and religion (and in religion-as-politics) there seems to be no mechanism for self-correction, other than total defeat of the entire system of thought. (In saying this, I would point to Bishop Spong's telling observation that "Christianity must change or die," further remarking that it looks like Christianity isn't particularly interested in changing.) In science we do have a built-in self-corrective mechanism that makes it possible for mistakes to be corrected, for blind spots to be filled in, and for the arrogance of dogma to be replaced with renewed humility.
Why does this matter now? Because, with upcoming political debates around legislation having to do with stem cell research, abortion, when a when human life appears in the womb, the science of global warming, and other matters for which the agenda has been dominated by the Right, we can be sure the familiar rhetorical devices that have worked so well over the past 14 years will be dusted off and oiled up for another try.
Here is the answer that all dissenting replies need to include, explicitly or implicitly: "You're right because you're Right? Wrong. Check the facts."
Obama: An American Savior
Barack Obama’s presidency will be the dawn of a new relationship between the federal government and the American people. The beginning of change will come as communication improves between the American public and governmental leadership. Americans can expect President Obama to come out from behind his desk in the Oval Office not just to address them, but invite them in, listen, and interact with them. President Obama will use technology, including the Internet, cell phones, PDAs, and even MP3 players, to keep in touch with the American public and to keep the American public involved with the federal government. The Obama Administration will regularly meet with the press and keep the media abreast of governmental goings-on. The propaganda and rhetoric of late will be replaced with progressive conversation and bipartisan dialogue. Starting with his own administration, President Obama will permeate transparency through Washington like bleach through dirty water.
Never before has America been so prepared for a decontamination of D.C., a Congressional cleansing, and a purification of power. If there’s one thing Americans can agree on, it’s that the federal government is so tainted with sullied politics that the trust of the people it represents is in real jeopardy, if not already lost. The unity and will of the American people are as commanding now as they have been in times of great historical change. It has taken years of political misconduct to generate the atmosphere of mistrust that defines the nation's capitol at present. In this politically aggravated climate, Americans can be sure that President Obama will rise to the occasion and quench their thirst for change with the nectar of ethical and responsible ideology. Political recklessness and irresponsibility will not be tolerated in the Obama Administration. Expect a purge of problematic party politics, patronage, and pandering to special interests and a reach for reasonable, responsive, and accountable representation in Washington.
With D.C. under an Obama-brand broom and mop, the President will work to accomplish all he has promised in preceding months. Within (his first) four years, President Obama will address the most pressing issues facing America. This, of course, includes a resolution to the economic crisis, but many issues, including America’s dependence on foreign oil and weakening job market, must be resolved in order to solve the economic dilemma. He will create an environment conducive to energy independence and the proliferation of renewable energy sources that will create new industries for employment and liberate the country from dependence on foreign oil. He will cultivate infrastructure and the American auto industry to bolster the job market and reduce unemployment. Scientific investigation, including promising stem cell research, will increase under the Obama Administration to keep America up to speed with the international scientific community and expand job opportunities. He will also invest in America’s greatest asset – education – by increasing tax credits for higher education students, improving public education school systems, and either funding or eliminating the No Child Left Behind Act. He will increase the availability and affordability of quality healthcare coverage by offering a federal plan option to all Americans and cracking down on excess pharmaceutical charges. He will create a more balanced tax system that will begin to restore the federal budget and ensure the continuity of essential federal programs. He will close Guantanamo Bay detention camp, repeal the Patriot Act, and turn over power to Iraqi security forces to begin the removal of U.S. troops. President Obama will work to improve our international rapport and diplomatic relations, particularly in the Middle Eastern region, through open conversation with alliesand enemies. Change is what America expects and change is what she will get.
This change will not come immediately (C’mon, its politics!), but it will come in the next four years. Americans have spoken; we want change, we need change, and we’re ready for it. Now we look to President Barack Obama to make it happen.
If you like what you read, please vote for it on Brickfish.com! You'll help me win a scholarship.
URL:
http://www.brickfish.com/Pages/Blogs/BlogView.aspx?bid=35954&=HP_all_PPIMEMAIL&isep=1&pbapi=1898218&pbvi=57390710
Thanks! Be well.
Cella
At the time, there was a huge controversy surrounding the actual number of people who had attended the event organized by the Nation of Islam. The National Park Service claimed the number to be well below one million whereas the organizers estimated a figure above one million people. Dr. Farouk El-Baz, who is the director of the Center for Remote Sensing, was approached back then to provide a scientifically more accurate number that would help settle the dispute. Ever since, he has become the nation's leading expert in counting crowds.
So with the historic event of President Barack Obama’s inauguration approaching, Dr. El-Baz has been bombarded with telephone calls from the news media. Everybody wants to know how many people can fill the National Mall. Check out this conversation between Farouk and Magaly reminiscing about the Million Man March project and discussing the number of people who can be expected to fill the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on January 20th, 2009.
Click here to watch the video.
Over the past few weeks, Vice President-Elect Biden and I have announced some of the leaders who will advise us as we seek to meet America’s twenty-first century challenges, from strengthening our security, to rebuilding our economy, to preserving our planet for our children and grandchildren. Today, I am pleased to announce members of my science and technology team whose work will be critical to these efforts.
Whether it’s the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs—today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.
Right now, in labs, classrooms and companies across America, our leading minds are hard at work chasing the next big idea, on the cusp of breakthroughs that could revolutionize our lives. But history tells us that they cannot do it alone. From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process.
Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.
Dr. John Holdren has agreed to serve as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. John is a professor and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, as well as President and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. A physicist renowned for his work on climate and energy, he’s received numerous honors and awards for his contributions and has been one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change. I look forward to his wise counsel in the years ahead.
John will also serve as a Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—or PCAST—as will Dr. Harold Varmus and Dr. Eric Lander. Together, they will work to remake PCAST into a vigorous external advisory council that will shape my thinking on the scientific aspects of my policy priorities.
Dr. Varmus is no stranger to this work. He is not just a path-breaking scientist, having won a Nobel Prize for his research on the causes of cancer—he also served as Director of the National Institutes of Health during the Clinton Administration. I am grateful he has answered the call to serve once again.
Dr. Eric Lander is the Founding Director of the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard and was one of the driving forces behind mapping the human genome—one of the greatest scientific achievements in history. I know he will be a powerful voice in my Administration as we seek to find the causes and cures of our most devastating diseases.
Finally, Dr. Jane Lubchenco has accepted my nomination as the Administrator of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is devoted to conserving our marine and coastal resources and monitoring our weather. An internationally known environmental scientist and ecologist and former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jane has advised the President and Congress on scientific matters, and I am confident she will provide passionate and dedicated leadership at NOAA.
Working with these leaders, we will seek to draw on the power of science to both meet our challenges across the globe and revitalize our economy here at home. And I’ll be speaking more after the New Year about how my Administration will engage leaders in the technology community and harness technology and innovation to create jobs, enhance America’s competitiveness and advance our national priorities.
I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity.
Thank you.
Read more about the President-elect and the Vice President-elect.
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
We need to connect citizens with each other to engage them more fully and directly in solving the problems that face us. We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.
America risks being left behind in the global economy: Revolutionary advances in information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other fields are reshaping the global economy. Without renewed efforts, the United States risks losing leadership in science, technology and innovation. As a share of the Gross Domestic Product, American federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970.
Too many Americans are not prepared to participate in a 21st century economy: A recent international study found that U.S. students perform lower on scientific assessments than students in 16 other economically developed nations, and lower than 20 economically developed nations in math performance. Only one-third of middle class physical science teachers are qualified to teach in that subject, and only one-half of middle school math sciences have educational background in that subject area.
Friends, I know that science and engineering have taken much of the blame for much of our world's environmental woes. Much of this blame is rightfully placed. The sad result of many decades of blaming scientists and engineers (and their employers) for these environmental disasters (global warming, ozone depletion, water and air pollution to name only a few) has resulted in a whole generation of youth who abhor the sciences.
As a teacher of Chemistry and Physics, I see the tragic results of this process every day: students who only take science courses because they are required to; who have absolutely no plans to major in science or engineering in university.
As a former chemical engineer, I have been on a personal mission these past eight years to show students that their blame of scientists and engineers in misplaced... that whatever the past has given us, we will only be saved by informed, inspired and dedicated scientists and engineers who will do what it takes to solve the environmental and energy problems that plague our world.
I have been able to have a small success in my own little part of the world here in Madera: as both a teacher and the head of the science department of my school, we have in a few short years become a school of science-impaired youths, to one of the highest-performing schools in the state in science.
We have done this in three ways: First, we make science fun; second, we make sure that the knowledge gained by the students is relevant to their lives; and third, we take the mystery out of science to make the learning of science easy.
In the near future, I will expand on how we have accomplished these three. Thank you for reading; let me know what your ideas are.
Larry
Today, we are trying to do our humble bit to help elect Barack Obama. On Friday, Sarah Palin gave us yet another reason to feel good about what we're doing here.
We are far from the first people to comment on this subject so we'll keep it brief. But Palin's mockery of "fruit fly research" during her October 24th speech on special-needs children was so misconceived, so offensive, so aggressively stupid, and so dangerous that we felt we had to comment.
Here's the excerpt from the speech:
"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? [...] You've heard about, um, these -- some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!"
It's hard to know where to begin deconstructing this statement. This was a speech on autism, and Palin's critics have pounced on the fact that a recent study of Drosophila fruit flies showed that a protein called neurexin is essential for proper neurological function -- a discovery with clear implications for autism research.
Awkward! But this critique merely scrapes icing off the cake.
Fruit flies are more than just the occasional vehicles for research relevant to human disabilities. They are literally the foundation of modern genetics, the original model organism that has enabled us to discover so much of what we know about heredity, genome structure, congenital disorders, and (yes) evolution. So for Palin to state that "fruit fly research" has "little or nothing to do with the public good" is not just wrong -- it's mind-boggling.
What else does this blunder say about Palin and her candidacy? Many people have used it as just another opportunity to call her a dummy, since anyone who has stayed awake through even a portion of a high-school-level biology class knows what fruit flies are good for. But leave that aside for a second. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone of her voice as she sneers the words "fruit fly research." Check out the disdain and incredulity on her face. How would science, basic or applied, fare under President Palin?
We have other questions. Who wrote this speech? Was he or she as ignorant as Palin about the central role that fruit flies have played in the last century of biomedical research? Or was this a calculated slight to science and scientists -- a coded way of saying, "We don't care what you know or what you think"? We find it odd that, of all the examples of dubious expenditures of public funds, the speechwriters alighted on this one.
Whatever the explanation, it scares us. Everyone who has suffered, either personally or indirectly, from an inherited illness, and anyone whose life has been lengthened or enriched by modern medicine, should channel Palin's flip comment when they stand in the voting booth on November 4th.
By Stuart Fox Posted on Popsci.com
After a year of winnowing down questions from 38,000 scientists and citizens, Science Debate 2008 sent 14 covering health, research, the environment and science to the presidential candidates. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama answered the questions, and their answers can be read here. However, it’s easy for a politician to make promises, so PopSci investigated both senator’s voting records to see if their history matched up with their promises for the future. Each day for the next two weeks we'll present an analysis of the candidate’s voting records as compared with their answers to the ScienceDebate2008 questions. You can follow the entire series at popsci.com/election, where you can also sign up for an RSS feed.
Palin also has indicated that science, to her, is a point of view, not a process, and that school children should get to hear other points of view, such as intelligent design. This would be bad for science and bad for the economy. The Bush administration has muzzled scientists and other professionals and has ignored reports about climate change and environmental hazards. A McCain/Palin administration may be even worse. Vote for Obama/Biden.
