Farr Ago News

The New PTA

2006-10-01T12:32:00.000-04:00

Dear Concerned Parent,

We are writing to urge you to take action RIGHT NOW to protect your child's future. The public school system your child attends is a cesspool of temptation, sin, and tainted spinach - and it is only a matter of time before your angelic god-fearing child (if not, please send him/her here next summer. Trust us.) falls in. But wait! There's no need to move to move to Colorado Springs just yet. The PTA of America (Pro-life Theistic Acolytes of America) is forming a new chapter in your child's school district, and you have been chosen (to join it)! If you're morally outraged about the prospect of your child seeing "the naughty bits" at an art museum, boy are we the organization for you! Join now before your kid becomes a drug addict, a thief or a prostitute. We're serious.

Sincerely,
the (new) PTA of America

The (Benefits of the) High Cost Cost of Health Care

2006-09-27T10:21:00.000-04:00

David Leonhardt, writing in today's New York Times, argues that the skyrocketing cost of health insurance isn't a bad thing: it's actually helping us live longer. Leonhardt makes a good point - with the constant rhetoric over the "spiraling costs of health care" there is a real tendency to look at health care as simply a necessary cost with its value divorced from its price; Leonhardt analogizes it to gas which is appropriate.

And while Leonhardt does acknowledge that the current "solution" to high health care costs is to drop expensive patients from the health care rolls altogether, I believe he is too sanguine about the actual benefits conferred by our increasingly costly health care. In the last four decades health insurance has increased an average of $5,500 per person per year. How much of that money actually increases our longevity and improves our health? And at what point is that money better spent on other health-promoting activities (better food, more education, etc.) in lieu of traditional health insurance?

I know what I'm doing next summer

2006-09-27T00:00:00.000-04:00

I'm going to Jesus Camp! No, seriously: pretty scary.

Revisiting The High Cost of End-of-Life Care

2006-09-02T00:57:00.000-04:00

Almost six months ago I wrote about the exorbitant cost of certain life-saving drugs. At the time I argued that, in cases where a high-priced drug might extend a patient's life by a matter of some months, it might be rational to forgo treatments that came packaged with near bankruptcy as a side effect.

Six months later my opinion hasn't changed. And, as the Washington Post reports, there are others - actual cancer patients, not armchair bloggers - who are coming to the same conclusion: some drugs just aren't worth the price tag. While Americans as a group remain increasingly inclined to ignore the price tag when it comes to end-of-life expenses, it appears that the tide is starting to shift ever so slightly:

Despite official denials, the federal Medicare program makes subtle cost evaluations, says Dr. William Maisel, a Boston heart specialist who chairs a federal committee on cardiac devices. "I think they are concerned about people using the term `rationing' or `withholding therapies,'" says Maisel, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

One way to control costs, without saying "no," is to keep reimbursements low. For example, Medicare's $140,000 reimbursement last year for heart pumps is widely acknowledged as below-market.

"We can't say, `No,' explicitly. We say, `Yes, but,'" explains Peter Neumann, who runs a Tufts University center on medical cost-effectiveness in Boston.

Yes, but start with a cheaper drug, get prior authorization, or make a bigger co-payment.

Cost-benefit analyses that include the value of individual human lives are a reality in the world today. It should be only a matter of time, one would think, before similar analyses find their way to end-of-life care as well.

Personalized Medicine's High Cost of Entry

2006-09-02T00:43:00.000-04:00

A recent Chicago Tribune article canvasses the difficulties that academics and drug manufacturers alike are encountering in their attempts to make personalized medicine, or pharmacogenomics, profitable enough to pursue.

An interesting side note: the Tribune article touts Herceptin, an anti-breast cancer drug, as one of the few success stories of personalized medicine to date. Unfortunately, a recent study has found that Herceptin carries a greater heart damage risk than previously thought.

While this news doesn't repudiate Herceptin's therapeutic value it does serve as a careful reminder: even personalized medicine is not perfect medicine.

Cigarettes: Now More Addictive than Ever!

2006-09-02T00:14:00.000-04:00

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has discovered that cigarettes are more addictive than ever. The MA DPH study found "that tobacco companies increased levels of nicotine in most cigarette brands by an average of 10 percent between 1998 and 2004."

There might not be the political willpower to make cigarettes illegal, but it need not come to that. Amos Hausner, chairmen of the Israel Council for the Prevention of Smoking, is recommending that nicotine be removed from cigarettes entirely. Sounds like a good idea to put into play in this country as well.

And then, of course, there's always the brute force solution. Throw enough money at the problem and maybe it will go away. Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg, but I think that Chairman Hausner's plan, if implemented, would have much greater staying power.

Cigarettes: Now More Dangerous than LSD!

2006-09-02T00:02:00.000-04:00

Not only are cigarettes more addictive than ever before, they've also been declared more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD, and cannabis, according to the UK Science and Technology Select Committee.

Anybody else noticing a trend here?

Taking the Fight for Evolution Overseas

2006-09-01T22:05:00.000-04:00

Apparently, evolution isn't under attack only in Kansas. Now it's Kenya too. The leaders of the Kenyan Pentecostal congregation want to remove Dr. Richard Leakey's collection of hominid bones, which are real, tangible evidence of the power of evolution, from Kenya's national museum.

The group's rationale for the proposed removal: "Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory." Of course.

Evolution, Faith, and Ignorance

2006-09-01T22:00:00.000-04:00

A little bit late with this post, but Lawrence Krauss wrote an excellent editorial a few weeks ago in the New York Times on why the Kansas school board victory was only a minor one, and why a larger battle must be waged against scientific ignorance.

As Krauss puts it, "We must hold our elected school officials to certain basic standards of knowledge about the world. The battle is not against faith, but against ignorance." I certainly agree. And I wonder, as I've wondered so often in recent years, just how long it will take before evolution is left in peace, not just in Kansas but across the entire country.

The Hinxton Group

2006-09-01T21:41:00.000-04:00

The Hinxton group is endeavoring to establish an international consensus on stem cell research guidelines and regulations. One of the most interesting aspects of the site is a database on policy and guidance documents which allows users "to search for the guidelines and laws that govern and regulate stem cell research, and related fields, on the national, state and/or institutional level" in nations around the world.

Engineering Virtue

2006-09-01T21:27:00.000-04:00

James Huges, Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, believes that we will soon be able to use "technologies to [] assist our adherence to self-chosen moral codes and citizenship obligations."

It's not clear to me where Hughes draws the support for this statement but, assuming arguendo that he is correct, and that virtue engineering will one day be a possibility, I've got to ask: "What moral codes? What citizenship obligations?"

I'm highly skeptical of Hughes's claim that ethical enhancements are right around the corner. However, if they are, we've got a lot of work to do before they arrive.

Serial Surrogacy

2006-09-01T21:17:00.000-04:00

Briton Jill Hawkins is a serial surrogate mother. Currently carrying her seventh surrogate child Hawkins, who has battled obesity and depression for years, is hoping that her latest surrogacy fee will pay for cosmetic surgery to help slim her down.

The Daily Mail's profile is worth a read on its own, although it doesn't ask a logical question: if Jill Hawkins's self-admitted addiction to being pregnant is a common affliction, should surrogacy be more closely regulated than it is at present?

Putting a New Face on the Clones

2006-08-31T00:03:00.000-04:00

Kerstin Bergman, writing in last month's issue of The Scientist, notes that clones are being recast - in film and literature - in a newly positive light.

Good Math, Bad Math, Bible Math

2006-08-11T12:23:00.000-04:00

Whether you're new to the world of math, just looking to refresh your memory, or a lost soul in need of salvation, Professor Sharon K. Robbert of Trinity Christian College is here to assist.

Join Professor Robbert as she presents the basic lessons of single-variable calculus in a bible-friendly fashion that will be sure to confuse and startle you, but won't leave you corrupted by any heathen mathematical principles. Lessons include: "Does God Change?" (or Development of the Derivative); "God's Surgical Improvements of Our Actions" (or Function Operations); "God's Zero Tolerance for Error" (or Numerical Integration and Error Bounds); and many, many more!

If you're still not convinced, here's a sample instructional lesson from Robbert's unparalleled curriculum:

Secant Lines and Sanctification

Ps. 119:33-40

In differential calculus we study how a slope of a linear function can be generalized to the slope of a function whose graph is curved, creating the derivative of the original function. The definition of derivative uses a sequence of lines (secant lines) drawn through two points on a function that are approaching each other and a single point on the function curve. The derivative value or tangent line slope is defined to be the limiting slope value of this sequence of secant lines.

Once a person has been called to be a Christian, we are redeemed by Christ but not released from following the law of God. We are justified once but continue with the process of sanctification for the remainder of our lives. This sanctification process is like the limit process of the secant lines approaching the tangent line. There is one distinction between the concepts of sanctification and secant line limits, however. In the mathematical contexts, we accept results that are "sufficiently close," results that are in an epsilon-neighborhood of the desired quantity. While in our quest for perfection, the "better" we get the further we realize we are from satisfying all aspects of the law.

And remember, these amazing lessons can be yours for free!* Visit now: Christianity and Mathematics: Single-variable Calculus.

* No payment required, but we do get your soul.

Blogs' Day in Court?

2006-08-11T00:51:00.000-04:00

Blogosphere, meet Judge Clement James. The retired associate justice of the Oregon Supreme Court lashed out at bloggers today, declaring that it is "high time to fill the gap in a system that allows defamation in the blogosphere to go unchecked."

It's hardly surprising that, as blogs rise in prominence, they will be met with a growing call for regulation and for accountability. Judge James isn't going to be the man to bring the hammer down, but methinks the next few years will bring the courts and the blogosphere together in some less-than-pleasant confrontations.

A Modest Proposal: "Vote - or Else"

2006-08-11T00:42:00.000-04:00

Norman Ornstein's op-ed in today's NYT laments the low voter turnout in the Connecticut primary, and across the country, and suggests an interesting solution: mandatory voting. It's not going to happen, as Ornstein is quick enough to acknowledge, but it's an intriguing idea and his discussion of the pernicious effect that non-voting has on the political process are spot on.

More Green: Footballs and Helmets

2006-08-11T00:34:00.000-04:00

LGF with more dirt, this time on the seemingly omnipresent "Green Helmet Guy," who is shown in a clip from German TV staging (and re-staging) a shot of a dead child on a stretcher. Don't even know why I bother posting these updates here, just go over to LGF yourself.

Not surprising that this isn't getting more coverage, given the events of today, but the cinematic war story doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon...

50-30-42: The Combination to the Mind of Mainstream America

2006-08-10T00:54:00.000-04:00

Crunching the numbers is painful these days. If this keeps up I'm going to need at least a root canal, if not a lobotomy, before too long. At any rate, after a long day what better way to blow off some steam than by taking a look at some recent poll results that are so mind-bogglingly absurd they could almost be funny. Almost. Unfortunately, they're actually quite depressing.

Here are the numbers:

First, in Iraq, (1) WMDs are making a comeback. 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs in 2003, up from 36% last year. This might be slightly less shocking when you consider that (2) fully 30% of Americans can't even remember in what year the impetus for that fruitless search for WMDs, the September 11th attacks, occurred. But asking people to contemplate 2001 is still comparatively easier than asking them to contemplate something even older like, say, the origin of mankind. There (3) 42% still believe that "life on Earth has existed in its present form since the beginning of time."

The numbers speak for themselves, and what they say about Americans is far from flattering.

Dirt Digging in Lebanon with Little Green Footballs

2006-08-10T00:28:00.000-04:00

Little Green Footballs, the blog that first broke the Adnan Hajj photo-doctoring story earlier this week, is at it again. This latest post shows how the same bombed out Lebanese building has been used in a series of photographs over a period of several weeks. Each caption indicates that the building was flattened by a recent Israeli attack.

Kudos to LGF, which has certainly captured my attention this week. And, again, you have to wonder how deep the iceberg goes. It's hard not to wonder about the accuracy of the "news" that we see, hear, and read about these days...

[Update: Here's Ace of Spades HQ with a nice account of why Reuters, and other MSM outlets, are so susceptible to the fakeries offered up by the likes of Mr. Hajj. In case you're too lazy to click through, here's the one character summary: $ ]

Elizabeth's Story

2006-08-09T23:33:00.000-04:00

One woman's story about her struggle to die on her own terms. I see no need whatsoever to add any of my own commentary, Elizabeth's story stands on its own. Everybody, whether they support or oppose euthanasia, would do well to read this.

Made to Order (if you're lucky)

2006-08-09T23:00:00.000-04:00

It appears that the first genetic supermarket has opened its doors, here in the United States, where an embryo bank in San Antonio, Texas is offering customizable embryos for infertile couples.

The clinic "allows couples to buy fresh embryos that fit their requirements but which have no biological link to either of them." Seems like a recipe for designer babies, no?

No.

While there's currently a "waiting list for Aryan children," what's going to happen when the first couple that requested a blond haired blue eyed child winds up with brown hair and green eyes on their hands? Let's all keep in mind that selecting gametes on the basis of the phenotypic traits exhibited by their originators provides no guarantee about the phenotypic expression of the offspring, especially for multifactorial traits (like hair color).

While this process may raise the odds that a couple that desires a child with a specific hair color will receive it, in reality this is like going to the produce section of Nozick's genetic supermarket only to find that everything is wrapped up in thick brown paper. Sure, you can separate the watermelon from the blueberries, but the apples and the oranges look an awful lot alike don't they?

People are bound to get their hackles up over the ethics of even trying to select traits in this matter, and it's a reproductive decision about which reasonable people are entitled to disagree. But try to remember that what's happening in Texas is no different, ultimately, than what's been going on (often unconsciously) since time immemorial: the pairing of physically similar males and females with the hope, but without any guarantee, that the offspring will resemble the parents.

[Update: Law professor John Robertson, guest blogging over at the AJoB blog, is also wondering what all the hubbub is about. Robertson points out that what's happening in San Antonio is just another example of gamete brokering, which is happening in various forms all over the country as we speak.]

There's Informed Consent and There's Too Much Information

2006-08-08T14:58:00.000-04:00

Seems like Britain's NHS has swung the pendulum too far in the direction of the latter. To wit:

In 2004 the BMJ produced a special issue listing ethics committee horror stories, including a 64-page form which took 40 hours to fill in. The journal concluded that ethics committees had "swung out of control".

I'm a firm believer in the importance of truly informed and valid consent. But if that's what the NHS is inflicting upon potential research participants I have no doubt that ongoing and prospective studies are being held up due to a lack of volunteers. Furthermore, I have to sincerely question the validity of any consent that comes after a 40 hour session of paperwork.

Intelligent Design At the Checkout Line

2006-08-08T14:12:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, standing in the supermarket checkout line, the woman in front of me turned and presented me with a pamphlet.

"The end of all suffering is at hand," said the pamphlet.

"Do you have any thoughts on this topic?" asked the woman. I told her I thought that'd be awfully swell but, unfortunately, I didn't believe that the end of all suffering was actually all that imminent. She plowed ahead with a plug for the creator and when I quickly interrupted her to clarify - "I don't believe in a creative god" - she went on the defense.

"Well," she said, "there is actually lots of evidence in a creator. Did you know that the creation is proof that there is a creator?" Momentarily stunned by this vicious tautology, it took me a second before I could inform her that, while that may be technically true, I didn't believe in creation either. I preferred evolution.

"Well," she countered, "did you know that most scientists see design in evolution. That it's just, well, so complex that there must be design. That's what all the good scientists believe."

She paid for her groceries while I attempted to explain that, actually, nearly every scientist worth her salt thought exactly the opposite and that the problem with the intelligent design theory she was advancing was precisely its unscientific character. Then we wished each other well and she went on her way, thus concluding my first face-to-face encounter with a non-academic intelligent design pusher. Fun times.

In honor of that checkout line encounter, here's a recent LA Times review of three recent books that each debunk, in their own way, the myth of intelligent design. For those who wish to go straight to the source, the books are:

The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution
David Quammen
Atlas Books/W.W. Norton: 304 pp., $22.95
*

Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement
Edited by John Brockman
Vintage: 258 pp., $14 paper
*

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design
Michael Shermer
Times Books/Henry Holt: 202 pp., $22

Have Another Scoop

2006-08-08T13:59:00.000-04:00

And make that doughnut burger a la mode while you're at it. Why? Because research scientists at UCLA have found a way to turn fat cells into muscle.

Even though the UCLA researchers were quick to point out the conversion was from fat cells to smooth muscle cells, not beach-friendly skeletal muscle cells, that's not going to stop me from eagerly awaiting the infomercials touting John Basedow's newest video, "Cheesecake Abs."

Speaking of Doughnuts

2006-08-08T13:45:00.000-04:00

Many Medicare recipients are finding their first taste of the so-called Medicare "doughnut hole" to be a decidedly unsavory experience.

A Novel Approach to Orphan Diseases

2006-08-08T13:04:00.000-04:00

The NY Times reports on the efforts of a private charity to bring to market a pharmaceutical treatment for a rare disease, Black Fever, that for-profit pharmaceutical companies could not profitably develop.

Fake News: The Only News You Can Trust?

2006-08-07T22:10:00.000-04:00

All aflutter today, Reuters announced that it was pulling all 920 photographs by freelance Lebanese photographer Adnan Hajj after it was discovered that he had digitally altered at least two of the photographs depicting the ongoing conflict in Lebanon.

A public that is increasingly skeptical of the perceived slant of traditional news outlets is unlikely to become more trusting when it's unable to authentic even the raw data - images and the like - that it is being presented with. And that's one reason why fake news is so much less stressful and, let's face it, appealing to viewers. Rather than worry about bias or authenticity, when the Jon Stewarts and Stephen Colberts of the world read you the news, you can rest assured you're getting the exact same standard of truthiness each and every night. Which is to say, not a whole lot.

Finally, the Reuters flap takes me back to a Washington Post editorial from this past spring by Michael Kinsley, "The Twilight of Objectivity." There Kinsley suggested (and I'm sure he's not alone in this) that, just perhaps, it is time for mainstream media to move ever-so-slowly away from its faithful (and some would argue futile) attempts at objective reporting.

I can't imagine that the move from objective journalism to opinion journalism would be as painless as Kinsley seems to suggest, and it certainly wouldn't free journalists to alter basic facts as Mr. Hajj apparently did, but as our skepticism of traditional news sources increases, perhaps a reputation for objective reporting will soon be as quixotic as in-fact objective reporting.

Even More Freakish Fauna

2006-08-07T16:29:00.000-04:00

Following close on the heels of the recent two-toned Maine lobster is a...Manatee in the Hudson River? Indeed. These giant "sea cows" are typically found in the warm waters off the coast of Florida but, at least for now, one of them has decided to go exploring up the Hudson. Read more...

Janus the Lobster

2006-08-06T22:57:00.000-04:00

Janus, the Roman diety version, was typically depicted with two faces which were meant to symbolize, among other pairings, the beginning and the end of life. This incredible lobster, at odds of 1 in 50 million, offers up a similar tableau.

[Thanks to National Geographic for the picture.]

An Inconvenient Spoof: Exposed

2006-08-06T22:25:00.000-04:00

There's a little known fact (at least until recently) about the parody of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, that has been making the YouTube rounds. What was supposedly an amateur spoof, and not even a very entertaining one at that, was actually concocted by the Republican PR firm DCI.

Whatever anti-Gore or anti-anti-Global Warming buzz DCI, and its client Exxon hoped to create with the video is most decidedly being trumped by the backlash this disclosure has generated. To wit:

Proof, once more, that the Republicans are not afraid to cheat to win. And a sober reminder that, for every YouTube clip that is exposed as part of the Republican PR machine, there is almost certainly an unearthened mountain of similarly disingenuous propaganda floating around in the eddies of the internet.

Thank You TBL

2006-08-06T22:14:00.000-04:00

On this day, 15 years ago, Tim Berners-Lee publicized his WWW project and took a giant stride toward making this posting possible. Thank you TBL, and Happy 15th Birthday internet.

Dracula, and a Lesson in Stem Cell Ethics

2006-08-06T11:49:00.000-04:00

Here's one man's take (Or is it two men? Or is that the entire point? Let's just move on) on the ethics of cloning.

Excellent debate. And I must add that, as a long-time supporter of stem cell research, I was surprised to find myself questioning that stance. I can only attribute this newfound hesitancy to the compelling, and novel, argument put forth by Mr. Colbert (the blue one):

Red Stephen: "But so many people are for stem cell research, even those you think would be against it. Nancy Reagon, Senator Bill Frist, scientists all over the world. We should do it."
Blue Stephen: "Great idea. We'll destroy all the embryos. Life for a life, some must die so that others may life. Know who else feels that way? Dracula."

If only this didn't sound so much like the real stem cell debate. Then it would be funny funny, not sadly ironic funny. Sigh.

Who Wants to be an X-Man?

2006-06-12T21:56:00.000-04:00

After the success of the X-Men movie franchise, the third of which premeried Memorial Day weekend, probably quite a few people. But while most of us daydream about adamantium claws and telepathy, there are a few people who are taking the idea seriously.

Last week, at a conference called "Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights," a group of academics met to consider what a world with X-Men, or their genetically modified equivalents, might look like. While nobody is donning tights and hurling bolders just yet, the gathering was an interesting counterpoint to the Hollywood movie in which mainstream society sought a "cure" to the superhumans, or mutants, living among them.

From the silver screen to the ivory tower the question is the same: is genetic modification a crime against humanity, a disease to be prevented; or is it the next stage of human evolution, and an individual right to be protected?

Combination of Powers

2006-06-11T09:52:00.000-04:00

While I don't view the judiciary as the last bastion of partisan-free governance in this country - recent judicial appointees, including Alito and Roberts, don't exactly have a track record as moderates - it remains, unquestionably, the least politicized branch of our democracy. Furthermore, because we are a common law country, where judicial precedent matters, by upholding not only the Constitution and the laws of this country, but by respecting past binding judicial decisions as well, the judiciary acts a historically-anchored brake on social trends, slowly the rapid progress of fleeting social trends and preventing their entrenchment unless and until they demonstrate truly long-term popular support.

Regrettably, even the appearance of judicial neutrality soon find itself threatened in some parts of this country. In Alabama, four Republican candidates for the State Supreme Court who "claimed they could pick and choose which U.S. Supreme Court decisions they would follow" were defeated in the primary elections held last week.

That's the good news. The bad news is that such a platform was considered viable by Republican strategists. Is Alabama an aberration, or will this judicial campaign strategy be repeated across the country, as would-be judges play politics with voters, pandering to their basest instincts at the expense of the rule of law?

How Tired Are You?

2006-06-05T00:16:00.000-04:00

Things have been very busy around these parts (as evidenced by the almost total lack of posting for a while now). Despite all the work, apparently my reactions are still humming along decently enough. To find out how you stack up (and how much more coffee you need to drink), take a spin with this addictive little BBC time sink and go dart some sheep.

Then, after you've done that, please tell me how in the heck you can get to "turbo-charged cheetah" status. I'm wondering if it's not actually possible and the creators of this productivity black hole are conducting some sort of background research to see how long I will continually return to play this game, attempting to achieve the elusive cheetah status. If anybody manages it, please post your screenshot, just so I can live vicariously through you.

Senatorial Scorecard

2006-05-20T10:18:00.000-04:00

Let's see: on the one hand, the Senate Intelligence Committee is upset at being frozen out by the government. On the other hand, they're busily trying to freeze out others.

Yesterday, during CIA director-nominee General Michael V. Hayden's confirmation hearings, Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, were outraged that the White House withheld details of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. And that's understandable. Nobody, especially Senators, appreciates it when important conversations are taking place and they haven't a clue what's going on.

Indicative of the mood at the hearing were the comments of Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine who "complained that the small number of lawmakers who were briefed before Wednesday were 'handcuffed' because they were not permitted to share information with colleagues."

It's a legitimate complaint, one that was echoed by her colleagues, but one that rings a bit hollow in light of what the Senate did on Thursday. The day before the Hayden Hearings, the Senate voted 63-to-34 to attach an amendment to proposed immigration legislation that would make English the "national language" of the United States.

In addition to providing that "The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America," the amendment also contains this little nugget of inclusiveness:

Unless otherwise authorized or provided by law, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. If exceptions are made, that does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or any language other than English.

So much for keeping people informed and in the loop. 63 members of the Senate, including Senator Snowe, have apparently never heard of the golden rule: do not freeze out others unless you would like to be frozen yourselves.

Designer Baby: On the Way

2006-05-12T23:18:00.000-04:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2178178,00.html, according to The Times, is on its way.

Farr Farr Away, Nearly Returned

2006-05-11T23:06:00.000-04:00

My apologies, to those who care, for dropping off the face of the blogosphere without warning roughly two weeks ago. A death in the family and the end of the semester conspired to eliminate my excess time. I'm currently in transit to find a new home for the summer. When I settle in, hopefully within the week, the postings will start to resume.

In the meantime, the more things change (and the longer I'm away from the world), the more things stay the same: Hwang Woo Suk was indicted in South Korea today.

The Nukak

2006-05-11T23:02:00.000-04:00

How different, their lives from ours.

What's in a Wikipedia Name: The Genesis of an Idea

2006-04-29T18:52:00.000-04:00

This is an email query I received from a friend, along with my response. I think the basic question - how do ideas, generally speaking, come to be named? - is an interesting one, and I'd welcome further feedback and contributions from you all on this topic.

[initial email: tom]

one time a while back, you and i were having one of our typically long phone chats and i think one of us raised the idea that climates dictated the behaviors, attitudes, and even thinking patterns of populations. (so on the Med you get more laid-back loungers; in the colder climes you get more philosophers and readers--that sorta thing. cf America.) anyway, i know that either i suggested it, or you suggested it and i inserted that i had also read of that notion in Byron, where he talks about the sexual licentiousness that often accompanies warm climates. i think the conversation ended there because it was just sorta that: 'huh...yeah, that's
kinda interesting.'

turns out it goes back as far as Montesquieu in the Enlightenment, and to one of his favorite writers Tacitus before that, and before that...? here's from Wikipedia on M:

'One of his more exotic ideas, outlined in The Spirit of the Laws and hinted at in Persian Letters, is the climate theory, which holds that climate should substantially influence the nature of man and his society. He even goes so far as to assert that certain climates are superior to others, the temperate climate of France being the best of possible climates. His view is that people living in hot countries are "too hot-tempered," while those in northern countries are "icy" or "stiff." The climate in middle Europe thus breeds the best people. (This view is possibly influenced by similar statements in Germania by Tacitus, one of Montesquieu's favourite authors.)'

so i guess my question is this: is there a way to catalogue certain ideas? then how does one access/search them? could it somehow be as efficient, or nearly as efficient, as a dictionary? i'm assuming this particular theory doesn't have a name, and maybe that's all that is required--to make one up. e.g., let's call it psychoclimatology, give it a Wikipedia page, give it a bit of history (and always inviting people to add places in other literature where the notion may have first appeared), any scientific backing it may have, any recent developments, where it stands now (credibility-wise), etc. this is, then, how it is actually 'entered' into our world of data, and how it becomes searchable and usable.

but is this the only way? and what if it doesn't have a name? would the Wikipedia entry be, 'Theory_That_Climates_Affect_Human_Evolution_And_Development_And_Behavior'? what about for even more nuanced theories?

ok, i'm on the brink of deleting this whole email because i don't know where i'm going with this...but i'll send it anyway and see if it inspires any random musings from you.

[and a reply email: tim]

I don't remember the specific discussion about climate theory but we must've had it some time ago, otherwise I'm sure I would've gone on about all the evolutionary explanations that convincingly tie climate to behavior, activities, etc. in human beings, and in countless other species as well. Don't remember anything about Byron or Montesquieu but I suppose that's not really your point...

Your question is how we define and delineate ideas, but I think that you might be thinking about it too rigidly. I don't think this particular idea, or many other ideas, need to be easily defined and labeled for purposes of their own Wikipedia page (or some other system of cataloguing). I think that ideas like this one aren't discrete and bounded in a way that lends to their easy description in one topical name, or one sentence, or one webpage. The notion that climates affect human evolution, development, and behavior is one that can be addressed from many different angles, and relies of numerous other ideas (I won't call them "sub-ideas" because some are as or more encompassing than this particular one) from a whole host of disciplines: evolutionary biology, history, anthropology, social psychology...just to name but a few.

I think it's tempting to want to isolate every idea from every other ideas - to show their connections (think html links), yes, but also to show their boundaries as well. Only, I don't think it works that way. To do so would require placing such a vast amount of material in so many different places - consider the importance of something like natural selection to this idea, to Darwin's theory of evolution, to the development of common law jurisprudence, etc., etc., etc. - that it would be an impossible feat.

So we have chunks of ideas. And they float out there, in the collective knowledge of history, attached and detached from other chunks of ideas at various points in time. Sometimes they coalesce in a way that lends itself nicely to a Wikipedia name - the theory of evolution, the theory of global warming, philosophical skepticism, etc. - and sometimes they don't. I'm not sure it's something that can be forced other than...well...other than pulling together all of those disparate idea nodes and writing yourself a paper or a book or a treatise that makes sense of them all, that binds them in a way that other people find believable and compelling. In many respects I think that is what lies at the core of most academic scholarship. Very few people, academics or otherwise, describe something entirely new in the world. Much more often, it seems to me, the role of the academic is one of synthesis: taking all those ideas that are more or less fairly related to something that interests her, pulling them all together, and spitting out something that is nicer, clearer, and lends itself to a Wikipedia page. Do that and you've probably earned yourself tenure at a university somewhere.

Don't know if that was helpful it all - but those are my quick thoughts...

Looking forward to some more opinions on this topic...

More Stem Cell Politics

2006-04-28T10:35:00.000-04:00

Anybody who thinks that stem cell research is anything other than political ought to have a talk with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

This week, Blagojevich awarded $10 million in state grants to encourage stem cell research. Where did Blagojevich come up with the money to support research that state Republicans oppose? He slipped it unnoticed into the state budget. And he'll do it again:

"If there are other ways, unilaterally through executive action, I'll do it. I'm not going to wait for a bunch of politicians in Springfield who won't do the right thing to help cure diseases."

Though I strongly support stem cell research I'm not a fan of this sort of unilateral executive action. Whether or not you personally agree with the decision, these sort of end runs around the democratic and legislative processes make a sham of the political process.

Nevertheless, Blagojevich's frustration is understandable. With embryonic stem-cell researchers hamstrung by federal funding restrictions, and politicians doing their best to muddy the debate about the merits, efficacy, and morals of ESC research, some politicians and researchers have had enough.

It's time for Congress to get its act together and authorize federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

Cows Mad No More

2006-04-28T10:30:00.000-04:00

Chinese scientists claim to have successfully cloned a calf that is resistant to the infamous mad cow disease (more properly known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy).

What I’ve Learned from Terri Schiavo

2006-04-24T22:31:00.000-04:00

This evening, before dinner, I spent two hours in discussion about the legal and bioethical arguments surround the Terri Schiavo case. For all of the discussion and controversy surrounding Schiavo’s case, what has become abundantly clear to me, above and beyond any question about whether the right thing (legally or ethically) was done in Terri’s case, is that end-of-life decisions are something that must be faced before that time comes.

Of course I understand that, in some cases and for some people, to expect advance planning on this topic is unlikely. Unfortunately there are those in life who die young or who have more immediate problems to consider, such as feeding themselves or their families. And, for these reasons, as well as for others, the issues that Terri Schiavo’s case raised to the level of national consciousness are indisputably important ones that must be carefully considered.

But for those of us with the dual luxuries of health and leisure – and I can only assume that most, if not all, readers of this blog fall into that category - we have the ability, and the responsibility, to avoid situations like Schiavo’s by making end-of-life decisions on our own behalf; and making them well in advance. In so doing we can avoid the uncertainty, and the type of gut-wrenching decisions, that tore apart the Schiavo family.

Tonight, shortly after I concluded the discussion on Terry Schiavo, I learned that my grandfather had been admitted to the hospital with pneumonia. My grandfather has been suffering from Alzheimer’s for over a decade and, according to his doctor, in his current deteriorated condition attempting to treat the pneumonia, even if successful, would leave him dependant on life-sustaining technologies of some sort. I'm thankful that, within my family, there is no confusion over what is to be done next. My grandfather and my grandmother discussed this scenario years ago – with each other and with their children. Though I’m saddened, and though I miss my grandfather more acutely today than yesterday, I am happy for him in a way. I am thankful that he made his wishes clearly known and that they will be obeyed. Most of all, I am proud: he lived a full and admirable life, and a long life as well – and his sun is now setting.

We should all of us be so fortunate in our own lives.

[Note: For those seeking information on advance directives and living wills, Caring Connections offers comprehensive information on the subject, along with official forms (available as .pdfs) for all fifty states.]

The Stem Cell Wedge Maneuver

2006-04-23T23:57:00.000-04:00

Taking a page out of the Discovery Institute's playbook, the Democratic party is angling to make embryonic stem cell research a 2006 campaign issue which will drive a wedge into the Republican party, divide candidates and voters, and reclaim a Congressional majority in the 110th Congress. Will it work? Ask me again in September, after we've invaded Iran and everybody has forgotten about stem cells...

In Honor of Earth Day, the News is Green

2006-04-22T12:15:00.000-04:00

When I fired up my browser this morning I was greeted by a solar powered Google icon. And when I skipped over to the New York Times a few minutes later Earth Day was being advertised there as well, albeit in a somewhat subtler fashion.

Green is all over the front page of the Times today. In case there's any doubt, here's a sampling of the stories:

- Thomas Friedman's current column, "The Greenest Generation," challenges university students to drive their schools toward a carbon-neutral goal. Friedman, toward the end of his column, takes up the crusade of carbon offset, which is also the subject of...

- "Gas Guzzlers Find Price of Forgiveness", a piece by Anthony DePalma, which investigates the various ways fossil fuel fixated Americans are easing their minds, and lightening their wallets, by paying for the carbon dioxide their vehicles emit. Said one SUV owner and operator: "It rounds the edges off of the guilt a little bit, I guess...It's a little like having your cake and eating it too."

Is carbon offset a real solution to global warming? It's hard to see how, largely because it does little to nothing to reduce our total energy consumption. But it's better than nothing, and it's an idea that...

- William H. Hinkle has gotten behind. Hinkle is offering $100 carbon offset challenges - "promis[ing] to buy a $100 pass from one of three carbon-offset programs in the name of the first 1,000 people who" read and pass along his "brief presentation[s] of what he believes is the grim reality of global climate change, and how the rich and powerful make things worse with their limousines, jet flights and big homes."

But Hinkle isn't stopping with carbon offset. He's also offering "$500 rebates to 20 families anywhere in the nation with annual incomes of less than $80,000 that buy a new fuel-efficient Prius before July 31." That's an offer that is all the more appealing now that...

- Oil prices are at record highs and gas is pushing the $3 barrier at many stations nationwide. And Democrats are looking to capitalize. Here's the quote: "Americans are tired of giving billion-dollar tax subsidies to energy companies and foreign countries while paying record prices at the pump." And speaking of billions of dollars...

- Wal-Mart is going green! Well, maybe. This month Wal-Mart joined "a call by a group of energy executives for caps on greenhouse-gas emissions." The environmental community, understandably, was somewhat shocked by this announcement, but is now waiting to see where Wal-Mart's new green streak will lead it next.

So there you have it folks. The headlines are painted green today, Earth Day, and that's a pleasant development on this Saturday morning. At least for today I'm feeling optimistic enough to suggest that, just perhaps, this isn't a conveniently timed tie-in with Earth Day but a real indicator of a shifting public awareness about the environmental issues that trouble us today, and that threaten our future.

Today the devil is not in the details - the specifics of carbon offset programs or Wal-Mart's green initiatives - but in the notion that care for the environment, being green as it were, is important enough to change consumer's habits, affect voter's choices, and tickle the individual hearts and minds of Americans nationwide.

At any rate, happy Earth Day everyone.

A Modest Victory for Stem Cell Research in California

2006-04-22T11:52:00.000-04:00

A California Superior Court judge ruled Friday that the Institute For Regenerative Medicine, better know as California's $3 billion end run around federal funding restrictions on stem cell research, is a legitimate state agency. The ruling, a clear victory for the agency and supporters of stem cell research, will be appealed.

And as long as the opportunity for appeal remains open, and the constitutionality of the agency remains potentially in doubt, funding will remain a significant problem for the institute. Still, as the New York Times pointed out,

the agency managed to finance its first research grants this month after six philanthropic organizations lent it a combined $14 million, to be paid back once bond market financing is available.

The grants, totaling $12.1 million, went to 16 universities and nonprofit research centers to set up basic stem cell research training programs.

That's a start, but it won't the funding floodgates remain, in all likelihood, several legal rulings away from opening.

More Funny: Tiktaalik Bush

2006-04-19T10:21:00.000-04:00

(courtesy of Scientist, Interrupted)

The Unknown: Cartagena to Berlin

2006-04-16T17:48:00.000-04:00

The unknown.

It is baffling to Rummy and a frightening prospect to many. As such it is no surprise to learn that Food and Drug Administration is planning to take a closer look at nanotechnology at an upcoming meeting this October. This announcement falls on the heels of a recent recall in Germany where a bathroom cleaner using nanoparticles was recalled after being preliminarily linked to respiratory problems.

With regulators taking a closer look at nanotechnology, and some degree of concern that the long-term effects of pursuing nanotechnologies are largely unknown and potentially harmful, it's perhaps instructive to reflect on the Cartagena Protocol, created in 2000 to protect against the unknown dangers of genetically modified organisms. In a piece last week on SciDev.net, Arnoldo Ventura argues that while caution at the time was prudent, the Cartagena Protocol today serves primarily as a barrier to scientific development, and a drain on resources.

Am I arguing that the FDA is doing the wrong thing by taking a closer look at the emerging nanotechnology and nanomaterials industry? Not at all. But it's important to remember that "unknown" is not synonymous with "dangerous". Prudence is desirable, irrational fear of the unknown is not.

In the words of Horace Porter, "Be moderate in everything, including moderation."

New Face, Old News

2006-04-16T17:41:00.000-04:00

With far less fanfare (or consternation) as last November's operation in France, a Chinese man received a partial face transplant on Friday after having been mauled by a black bear. Isn't it amazing the relative calm brought about by even the most modest familiarity with a scientific procedure?

Diagnostic Testing: The Next Big Expense Thing?

2006-04-16T17:22:00.000-04:00

Big pharma might be about to get some company at both the bedside and the bottom line.

Thursday's New York Times contained an intriguing article discussing "a new wave of sophisticated genetic or protein tests that are starting to remake the diagnostics business." The article, "A Crystal Ball Sumberged in a Test Tube", is interesting in several respects but I'm fascinated, once again, by the unabashed emphasis placed by the developers of these tests on price and profit margins.

A sampling from the article:

Traditionally regarded as a low-profit, poor cousin of prescription drugs, diagnostic tests are emerging as high-profit products in their own right. Test developers are "trying to do what pharmaceutical companies have done with their drugs," said Jondavid Klipp, managing editor of Laboratory Industry Report, a newsletter.
...
"They are raising the tide for everyone else," Jorge Leon, the president of Leomics Associates, a diagnostics consulting firm, and the acting chief science officer at Orion Genomics, which is developing tests to detect cancer. He said Genomic Health had done a "fantastic" job of validating its test using clinical trials and then of "packaging it in a Starbucks package at a high price."
...
Asked about the price, Rob Shovlin, Aureon's executive vice president for sales and marketing, replied, "It's less than the Genomic Health price of $3,500." He added, "Patients have given us feedback that they'd be willing to pay more than that to have this information."
...

The high prices that the developers and marketers of these diagnostic tests are charging (routinely in the several thousand dollar range), and the willingness of patients to tolerate these high prices is, unfortunately, nothing new.

Like their cousins in big pharma, diagnostic developers justify the price of their test on the basis of how much they believe they can extract from patients. As a result, the price for both patients and insurers quickly becomes unmoored from the actual development costs, as well as the efficacy, of the test. Patients, for their part, demonstrate little or no price sensitivity, allowing test providers to continue to ratchet up prices.

Since I've been down this road fairly recently, I'm not going to rehash all my concerns here. But I remain somewhat baffled by it all...

Blinded by the Sex Appeal of Hybrids

2006-04-16T12:42:00.000-04:00

Further evidence that equating "fuel efficient" with "sexy", or "cool", isn't going to quench our thirst for gas guzzling autos: "Life in the Green Lane." This New York Times op-ed piece by Jamie Lincoln Kitman points out what is getting lost in the increasing popularity of hybrid vehicles is actual reductions in gasoline consumption.

As Kitman points out, embracing hybrids because of the green cachet does us no good, as the environment tends to be relatively indifferent to how good we feel about the environmental impact of the cars we drive. The environment tends to be more concerned with how much gasoline they actually consume. Legislators, on the other hand, are concerned with what sells. And right now, anything with the label "hybrid" attached to it is a big, big seller - there's even a certain sex appeal to driving a Prius these days, although it doesn't appeal to quite the same crowd as driving a Ferrari - irrespective of its actual gas mileage.

I won't carry on rehashing Kitman's critique any longer. For more read the op-ed and, also, please see last week's post on this topic: Cleaner Cars: Where There's a Will, There's a Way. The basic problem here is that hybrid vehicles are booming in popularity primarily because they're booming in popularity, not because of their diminished environmental impact. Unless and until that reality is understood, and hybrid vehicles stake their desirability on more than a trendy classification, I fear that it's going to take state intervention if we're to make any real headway in efforts to curb our consumption of gasoline.

Happy Easter

2006-04-16T12:37:00.000-04:00

This particular bit of religious satire only demonstrates what an untrustworthy atheist I truly am. Enjoy!

(thanks to Scientist, Interrupted for this one)

I'm The Least Trustworthy Person in America

2006-04-16T11:50:00.000-04:00

Because I don't believe in god. I'm also a threat to the American way of life and the perpetuator of "an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism."

Just thought I'd share that with you all.

Confirming the Obvious

2006-04-14T09:57:00.000-04:00

The Daily Mail announced yesterday that researchers have discovered a key to happiness: being your own boss. Anybody surprised? Not likely, especially amongst all of the more-independent-than-average bloggers.

The View from Above

2006-04-09T12:12:00.000-04:00

If you didn't make it to North Africa or Central Asia for a glimpse of last month's total solar eclipse you missed a great show (or so I hear). But the best view of all came from space. The photograph above was taken by the crew of the International Space Station, while orbiting 230 miles above the Earth, as the moon's shadow passed across the Mediterranean.

(image courtesy of National Geographic)

A Few More Thoughts about Sex Selection

2006-04-08T17:29:00.000-04:00

Because I think this is an especially sensitive and contentious issue, I'd like to say a few more words in defense of what I wrote a few days ago on the topic of sex-based abortion, and the problems in India it is both a cause and a symptom of.

Why do I think that sex-based abortions, where a woman chooses to abort a fetus based on the indicated sex of the fetus, should be allowed? First, and importantly, there are a number of practical difficulties that attend the criminalization of sex-based abortions. As a friend pointed out to me in conversation:

If we are going to let women decide ultimately whether or not to have abortions, how could we possibly qualify the validity of the choices they make? I fear that if we disallowed sex-selective abortions by law, women in countries that favor boys over girls would either resort to infanticide (whether or not it is illegal) or would abort their children claiming some other "legitimate" reason of their choice.

And I agree. It is difficult to envision exactly how banning sex-based abortions can be brought into concordance with a generally pro-choice view of abortion.

But there's a larger element to this problem: that of gender inequality. While I understand that sex-based abortions are symptomatic of an underlying problem - the stigmatization and diminished importance of females in certain segments of Indian culture and society - I don't think that criminalizing the practice sends the correct message.

What is the message actually conveyed by India's sex-based abortion prohibition, a law which is clearly not respected by many and is largely unenforceable? Rather than acknowledging that gender inequality is a cultural and societal problem that needs to be seriously and immediately addressed, the abortion law pays lip service to gender equality without any real hope of affecting it. As Albert Einstein said, albeit in a different context (the 18th amendment), "nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."

Instead of half-heartedly pursuing gender equality by trampling on reproductive freedoms, a process that is almost certain to disadvantage women more so than men, I think, perhaps, a different solution is in order. I’m not familiar enough with Indian society and gender relations to speak specifically on this point, and I know that this weakens my argument to a degree, but I think that there are other ways to address gender inequality and skewed sex ratios.

Perhaps I’m being naïve, or idealistic, but it strikes me that we should be able to have gender equality and reproductive freedom, without having to sacrifice one for the other. At the very least, I’d hope we could do more to explore that possibility before resorting to criminalization...

Nanotech Recall in Germany

2006-04-08T17:17:00.000-04:00

A bathroom cleaning product, claiming to utilize nanotechnology, was recently recalled in Germany due to reports of respiratory problems.

My first thought is that this is going to result in a hue and cry over the lack of reliable safety and efficacy data for most nanotechnology products now on the market. Beyond that, my next thought was whether or not the nanoparticles are really at fault.

The article suggests that the evidence is ambiguous as to whether or not the nanoparticles are to blame and, anecdotally, I'm reminded of the food poisoning outbreak in 1999 that was attributed to a bad batch of Belgian Coke. Malcolm Gladwell uses this example in the final chapter of the Tipping Point to illustrate how anxiety can be incredibly contagious. As it turned out, in Belgium, the problem wasn't that Coke was making people ill; it was that anxiety (produced by a combination of a strange odor in one batch of coke and a recent Belgian scare over contaminated animal feed) is both tremendously contagious and capable of producing very real physical effects upon people.

Is that what happened in Germany? No clue. But it certainly wouldn't shock me to find out that, at the least, rogue nanoparticles do not deserve to shoulder all of the blame. Oh, and the point of all of this is to wonder aloud, again, whether our fear of things that are unknown or uncommon, and the anxiety with which they produce, doesn’t perhaps make some of them more dangerous in the end.

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

2006-04-08T16:02:00.000-04:00

This piece, from the Chronicle of Higher Education circa 2003, was brought to my attention courtesy of the fine folks over at the AJoB blog. "The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science" was originally drafted by Robert L. Park, a noted pseudoscience commentator, as a guide "to help federal judges detect scientific nonsense" following the Supreme Court's rulings in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. concerning scientific expert testimony.

It was only later, Park recalls, that he "realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop." And so it is. And so we have Park's list of seven keys for spotting bogus scientific claims or discoveries.

Now this is an old piece that I've just discovered and, for that reason, I'm not going to summarize the whole piece here. After all, that's what links for. I'm including it in the blog in part because it strikes me as just as relevant today as it must certainly have been in 2003 - the recent situation in South Korea, as well as persisting claims that global warming is bogus, come to mind as good candidates for testing Park's seven rules - although that comes as no real surprise. Wherever there is money there are bound to be cheats and liars and scams. And there's plenty of money in science, although not always for the scientists themselves.

Still, it's an interesting (and engaging) piece of writing that, as Park suggests, all of us would do well to familiarize ourselves with. For those of us who aren't scientists, the media, our own limited knowledge and intuitions, and conversation with our scientifically-trained friends and acquaintances fail to provide an adequate or error-proof screening mechanism for the various scientific claims with which we are confronted on a regular basis. As a supplemental guide to evaluating legitimate science, then, Park's seven signs should help any of us cast a skeptical eye upon "scientific" claims that appear too good, or too fanciful, to be true.

Cleaner Cars: Where There's a Will, There's a Way

2006-04-05T12:39:00.000-04:00

Only there's no will.

The message behind last week's NYT article on automotive technology is that clean, fuel-efficient, competent vehicles don't sell. What sells is faster, bigger, showier.

For two decades automakers have been developing technology that could make vehicles go farther on a gallon of gasoline. But instead, they have chosen pep and size — making vehicles like the new Murano accelerate faster than cars like the old Mustang, and making them bigger.

The average vehicle, which 25 years ago accelerated to 60 miles an hour in 14.4 seconds, now does it in 9.9 seconds, a pace once typical only of sporty or luxury cars like Camaros and Jaguars. And vehicle weight now averages about 4,100 pounds, up from about 3,200 in the early 1980's, as many buyers switched to larger, roomier cars or to sport utility vehicles and minivans, and as automakers added safety equipment.

Buyers like the extra zoom and room, but these have come at a cost: average fuel economy has fallen slightly over the last two decades. The government's new standards for light trucks like S.U.V.'s, published yesterday, will require an 8.1 percent increase in miles per gallon over the four model years from 2008 through 2011.

I suspect that, to many, this is old news. It's not that we lack the technology to clean up our cars and, by extension, our environment; it's that we're unwilling to make the choices (I can't even call them "sacrifices") to get there.

If 2005 model vehicles, with their better technology, had the performance and size of those in 1987, they would use only 80 percent of the gasoline they do today, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That alone would get the country nearly halfway to the goal President Bush set in his State of the Union address: to cut American oil consumption enough to nearly eliminate the need to import from the Middle East.

But because Americans have not insisted on better fuel economy, "we can take the technology in the cars and turn the knob toward performance," said Karl H. Hellman, an automotive development expert who retired from the E.P.A. two years ago.

It's frustrating, more than anything, to know that so much of the struggle to clean up environmental pollution could be addressed by the simple recognition that we don't need our mid-sized sedans to perform like dragsters as they haul us to and from the corner store.

Sex Selection: The First Genetic Enhancement Battleground

2006-04-05T01:55:00.000-04:00

In India, a doctor and his assistant have been sentenced to two years in jail for performing abortions of female fetuses. The doctor, Anil Sabhani, used ultrasound to determine the sex of fetuses and routinely aborted female fetuses.

In India, where females are often marginalized and female children are treated as a liability, sex selection is a big issue. The clear cultural preference for men has skewed sex ratios in parts of India, sometimes dramatically. In Haryana, where Dr. Sabhani was arrested, there are 861 women for every 1,000 men.

No one disputes that sex discrimination is a problem, and that steps must to be taken to reverse the marginalization of Indian females. But is the solution to ban sex-specific abortions? If it is, as the Indian government believes, what does that mean for the future of reproductive freedom in India? Would the government ban embryo modification, as opposed to abortion, which was used to influence sex? What about height or eye color?

As we prepare for a world in which we will exert an increasing amount of control over the genetic composition of our offspring (although not as much as we are often led to believe), the debate over sex selection is a crucial one. If we stipulate that being born of a particular sex, either male or female, is not a disability, then banning sex-based selection sets a precedent that could potentially control other attempts by prospective parents to influence the traits of their offspring.

Clearly, India has a sex selection problem. And, equally clearly, sex-based abortion is different from sex-based embryo selection (prior to implantation) or sex-based embryo modification. But how India handles its current problem, and whether or not we accept their position, will go a long way toward influencing how the future debate over genetic modification is shaped.

Update: I just noticed this recent item - Britain is opening a new "designer baby" clinic. Right now the plan is to screen embryos solely for diseases. But that's right now.

Grasping the Holy Grail, but its too heavy to lift

2006-04-04T23:59:00.000-04:00

News today that reducing caloric intake, even in people who are of a healthy weight, can produce health effects that may, possibly, extend your life. The New York Times article cites a study, to be published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that tested the effects of rigorous caloric restriction in human beings.

The study authors are quick to point out that its results do not prove that a low-calorie diet will extend your life. A conclusive connection between low-calorie and longevity in humans is years if not decades away. In the meantime, it is clear that "the notion that going hungry could be the fountain of youth has captivated scientists and the public."

Wonderful. Then consider me a freedom fighter for food.

I've asked this question before, in the context of ballooning costs for drug treatments and end-of-life care, but I am continually baffled by the philosophy that death must be avoided and postponed at all costs.

Changing your diet to avoid a coronary at the age of thirty-eight I can understand. Cutting your caloric intake to 890 calories a day - or "four or five shakes a day and a specially formulated 'brownie'" - I find a little much.

Whence comes this absolute avoidance of death? Is it rooted in a fear of the afterlife? As we look inside ourselves and see, clearly, all of the skeletons that we have kept hidden from the gaze of others, do we worry that we might not be passing through those pearly gates after all? Or is it a simple fear of the unknown that drives us to cling as long as we can to what we do know, no matter the sacrifice?

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the prospect of death completely. Clearly, the pursuit of healthier bodies and of cures for our afflictions have created a world in which more people can productively contribute to the enrichment of humanity, and for longer periods of time.

But let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us ask to what end are we intent upon extending our lives? Why do we strive to reach the holy grail of immortality? Fear or ignorance of death, comfort with the familiar - to me these represent an insufficient foundation for the life-at-all-costs philosophy.

To those who urge a daily feast of 890 calories blended into shakes and a special "brownie" I say show me something more compelling than slowing down my metabolism so that I might live a while longer, gaunt and robbed of the culinary pleasures of life, or I'm going back to the buffet for seconds.

NO Justice in New Orleans

2006-03-31T12:33:00.000-05:00

The following comes from a friend who spent the past week doing relief work in New Orleans with an organization called Safe Streets, a group working to curb police brutality and to reform the criminal justice system in New Orleans.

According to her report, there is a long, long way to go:

...Relief here has been so slow and inadequate that it is hard to know where to begin. More than six months after the storm, huge areas have no power and water; kids don’t have schools to go to; debris and destroyed cars are littered on deserted blocks, the list goes on and on.

I spent the week working at an organization called Safe Streets which works on police brutality and the criminal justice system here. And, I was hoping that y’all (note the southern influence) would take a minute to read about some of the horror stories that are a part of daily life for African-Americans and the poor here.

The New Orleans criminal justice system has a long history of discrimination, corruption, and abuse. Prior to the hurricane, the police department was already notorious for its abuse. Because it does not have an independent monitoring arm, reports were rarely followed up on. In fact, those who complained suffered further abuse and some were even killed. More police in New Orleans have been convicted of serious crimes than in any other city. Poor people not only face overworked public defenders, but the public defenders office is overseen by the same lawyer who represents the police and the defenders are appointed by judges who frown upon “vigorous defense” since it clogs their courtrooms.

As bad as all this is, conditions since the storm have gotten much worse. The public defenders are funded by traffic tickets and so their funding has dried up since the hurricane. Without even this minimal safe guard, police harassment and brutality have spun out of control. I met dozens of individuals being released from jail. The story which I heard over and over was that people are stopped walking down the street, in their cars, or in their homes without probable cause and without search warrants. They are never read their rights. Police refer to this as simply “street sweeping.”

When the police don’t find drugs, they charge individuals with public drunkenness which doesn’t even require a breathalyzer test, with public disturbance, with blocking a sidewalk, or with criminal trespass. I spoke with five men who were charged with criminal trespass in the home that they themselves were renting. They were arrested and charged despite producing renter’s receipts (could I produce renter’s receipts? No).

While many described their physical treatment as fair apart from the harassment of being arrested in the first place (lending credibility to their complaints), abuse on arrest is frequent. I met one man whose head was slammed on such a hot car hood that he suffered third degree burns and needed a skin graft on his face. Others have been beaten so badly vertebrae in their back or neck is broken. Yet unless, they have credible witnesses or a tape of the abuse like the retired school teacher Robert Davis, the police get away with it. One older gentleman who was arrested for trespassing in his own house was and told by the officer “You should never have brought your black ass back to New Orleans.”

After being arrested, they are taken down to the one jail still operating in New Orleans. Conditions in the jail are almost indescribable. People go without food for the first day. The cells have mold that make people sick. 40 people are crammed into cells that were built for 12. There is no ventilation or temperature control—which meant that this winter temperatures inside dipped to freezing on some nights and there are no blankets. When summer comes, it will be just as bad. Food and urine are on the floor and they have to use trash bags for toilets. Since there are no public defenders to press for a speedy release and FEMA pays for each person jailed, the people I met had languished in the jail anywhere from days to months. Some hadn’t even been given a phone call to let anyone know. All this before even being charged. So, it doesn’t help if the charges are ultimately dropped. The people I met never talked with a public defender. In fact the public defenders office recently recused itself from 3000 cases because it couldn’t provide effective counsel. Yet, this move simply left these people without any representation at all. The few who do see a public defender any time before their first court appearance are usually told to plead guilty without even being asked about their stories.

Less widespread but just as tragic, nearly 2000 people are still in jail awaiting charges or a trial from when Katrina hit…over six months ago. A few months ago, this came to light and a judge issued a decree that if the D.A. couldn’t bring charges by the end of January, the individuals had to be released. January has come and gone, but without anyone to enforce the decree, these people are still waiting in jail. The wardens are in no rush to let them go because they get FEMA money for each night they house the prisoners, the D.A.’s office would still like to bring charges when they get around to it, and the public defender’s office simply has no resources. Many would like to just plead guilty since they could get off with time already served. Even for those who do have charges brought against them, the average stay in prison before trial is 385 days and growing. One girl, only 17 at the time of arrest in
connection with a school shooting, had been in jail for 2 years awaiting trial when the storm hit. Her trial has now been postponed until at least September. Another man has been awaiting trial for five years.

New Orleans has a serious crime problem, but this treatment is abhorrent and the abuse of scarce resources only punishes an already beleaguered community. I was really shocked that conditions like this still existed right in our backyard. I know that most people don’t lead a life of leisure like me and can’t come down here to see for yourselves and help. By writing this email I was hoping to do what little I can to let people know about this tragedy and I hope you’ll do the same by mentioning it to your friends and family.

Annie

To those who regularly read this blog, and to those who stumble along only occasionally, please do your part and pass this information along. After all, the point of the blog revolution was to enable all of us to tell the stories that weren't being told by mainstream media, the stories that couldn't find a voice. Well, this is a story that isn't being told. But it can be.

Please spread the word.

A hope and a prayer, but no help

2006-03-31T11:43:00.000-05:00

"Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery." That was the much anticipated conclusion of a decade long study into the effects of intercessory prayer.

The study, which concentrated on prayers offered for patients recovering from coronary bypass surgery, further suggested that prayer, rather than benefiting post-operative patients, might actually harm them. Researchers in the study hypothesized that the adverse results associated with intercessory prayer might be due to increased expectations on the part of the patients.

To which some members of the prayer community offered a predictable, and consistent, response: "A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," said Bob Barth, the spiritual directory of Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry. "But we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."

This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable response for someone whose beliefs or opinions are premised on faith. By definition, a faith-base belief is one that does not require evidence or proof to justify its own existence. Which begs the question: why try to provide scientific justification for a belief that is rooted in faith?

In studying intercessory prayer it strikes me that, for many people who already engage in the practice, only two outcomes were possible: 1) the disclosure of a positive correlation between intercessory prayer and improved health status, which would encourage further prayer, or 2) no correlation (or a negative correlation), which would be dismissed as incomplete or as irrelevant.

Beliefs premised on faith are, typically, not averse to receiving scientific or empirical support. But they do not require it for, as faith-based beliefs, they can and will be maintained even in the face of contrary evidence, for it is faith, and not evidence, by which they are supported.

All of this leads me to wonder what purpose this study truly served? When scientific research dollars are scarce, is there really full value in pursuing a question whose results will only be acknowledged if favorable? More broadly, what role can and should scientific research take on in the investigation of beliefs that are fundamentally rooted in a supernatural faith that exceeds the boundaries of scientific investigation?

If this is to be the response by the faith-based community to studies of faith, then why commission the study at all?

"A Pacemaker for the Brain"

2006-03-25T11:10:00.000-05:00

This FDA-approved implanted medical device claims to alleviate depression for a mere $25,000. I wonder what Leon Kass thinks of this.

Lowering the Curtain on Hwang Woo-suk

2006-03-25T10:36:00.000-05:00

In a little publicized announcement (well, anyway, it took me five days to hear about it) earlier this week, Seoul National University fired infamous stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk. The announcement, along with news that "six other professors who worked with Hwang [had been] either suspended or had their salaries cut", marks, one would hope, one of the last entries along an ignominious timeline for stem cell research and scientific ethics.

Though the name of Hwang Woo-suk will now, one would hope, drop from the popular press (although criminal charges are still pending), there is still much to be learned from the institutional structures that permitted this scandal to develop in the first place. Now that the story is drawing to a close, the time for reflection is fully at hand.

Whence Came Intelligent Design?

2006-03-23T07:11:00.000-05:00

From the choirs of Catholic elementary schools, that's whence.

Recently I was having a discussion with a friend who believes in intelligent design. My friend, Ryan, is a very bright guy - thoughtful, intelligent, opinionated - and not necessarily the type that I would peg as an ID adherent. Anyhow, in the course of our discussion he actually sang for me a song from his Catholic choirboy days. I think that the song, "I'm a K-I-D, Not a Monkey," the first verse of which is reprinted below, explains a lot:

I'm a K-I-D, Not a Monkey

Some people say
That the Bible's wrong
That the first mom and dad
Came from old King Kong.
Well I admit
A banana split
I just can't seem to get enough of it.
But that doesn't prove a thing
NO! That doesn't prove a thing
Cause God made me in His image
I'm a K-I-D, not a monkey!

Ryan was raised as a strict creationist and, in the two decades since his ~~brainwashing via song~~ choir days, he's migrated to a belief in evolution, but only under the watchful direction of God.

I'll bet a Ghiradelli bannana split that by the time two more decades have passed, the belief in intelligent design will have gone by the boards as well. Now if only I could set that to song...

An Example of "Bad Logic": Human Cloning

2006-03-23T00:52:00.000-05:00

I was asked recently, via email, to provide an example of "bad logic." In fact, here's the full text of the email:

I need about a paragraph's worth of a dumb logical or tautological
argument, the kind that a self important logic student in a senior seminar might spew out in his term paper. Anything come to mind? Thanks. -jv

If you care to read and/or critique my response, read on.
Here, in it's full and complete form, is my response:

Not totally sure what you're asking for but I'll do my best...

1) I'm going to interpret "dumb logical" as meaning "logically unsound" and "tautological" as, well, "tautological." So, before we get to what you’re looking for, a little in the way of definitions:

2) Soundness: An argument is logically sound if and only if the argument is valid AND all of its premises are true.

Of course for this to make any sense we need the following definition:

3) Validity: An argument is logically valid if and only if when its premises are true its conclusion cannot be false.

The following is an example of a valid argument form:

I) If A then B
II) A
III) Therefore B

Note that this argument is valid regardless of what you substitute for A and B. So if I say

I) If I can type a sentence then John will give me $1,000,000.
II) I can type a sentence.
III) John will give me $1,000,000.

that is a logically valid argument. However, as is readily apparent, it is not a logically sound argument because all of the premises are not true, namely the first one. On a side note, if it turns out that all of the premises are true please let me know immediately – I’ll send you my address.

Now we get to the last key term…

3) Tautology: A statement (different from an argument, which is composed of several statements) is a tautology that is truth-functionally valid. That means that regardless of the truth of its variables, the statement itself is always true. Or, to put it more colloquially, a tautology is an argument that is trivially true. So, an example:

I) A or not A

Or, in words:

I) The Raven is black or the Raven is not-black.

Notice that tautologies or more or less independent of the logical validity or soundness of an argument. An argument can be logically sound (which implies logical validity) and contain a tautology, it just probably won’t be a very meaningful argument. For example:

I) The sky is blue.
II) If the sky is blue then either the sky is blue or the sky is not blue.
III) Therefore, the sky is blue.

This argument has a logically sound form, and it also contains a tautology (II). As you notice, it’s not all that compelling.

This leads me to the final point…

4) What you want:

I assume that what you want is not for me to give you one sentence examples of unsound or tautological arguments. What I’m not too clear on is what you do want…

Do you want an example of a “bad” argument (where “bad” means either “unsound” or “tautological” or both) that might show up in a college classroom? Do you have a topic or a prompt?

In case you don’t, here’s an example I came up with that you might find useful.

5) Example: Human Cloning

The development of genetic sciences is proceeding with astonishing speed. Sooner or later it may become possible to clone human beings. If this happens, cloning of human beings should be banned. Why? Because allowing the cloning human beings would create a host of nightmare scenarios – children harvested for organs, armies of warrior clones trained to feel no pain or remorse, an inexhaustible supply of Dick Cheneys – that everybody would agree must be stopped at all costs. Therefore, human cloning should be banned.

Notice that if you break this argument down you get the following argument (more or less, there are some interpretative questions here):

I) Either cloning will be possible or cloning will not be possible (“Sooner or later it may become possible to clone human beings”).
II) If cloning is possible it should be banned (“If this happens, cloning of human beings should be banned”).
III) Therefore, human cloning should be banned (“Therefore, human cloning should be banned”).

or, to use symbols:

I) Either A or not A
II) If A then C
III) Therefore, C

Notice, first and foremost, that all the “meat” of the argument – the stuff about Cheney and whatnot – adds nothing to the logical structure of the argument. It simply is an elaboration on the “If A then C” premise above. That is, “If cloning is possible it should be banned because ….”. This is important for getting you to believe that premise II is a true premise, but it doesn’t change the logical form.

And looking at the logical form we see an argument that a) contains a tautology, which is usually a bad sing and b) is neither logically sound nor logically valid.

1) The tautology is obvious – it’s premise (I).
2) The argument is invalid because all the premises (I and II) may be true and the conclusion may yet be false. That is, it might never prove possible to clone human beings, which means that the conclusion would not follow despite the (arguable) truth of both premises.
3) The argument is unsound because the truth of all the premises has not been demonstrated. The first premise is true because it is a tautology. The second premise, on the other hand, is not necessarily true. There has been support given (the Cheney line) but it is hardly compelling or convincing support.

Thus you have an argument that is logically flawed in several ways and yet, despite this, might conceivably be employed. Usually horrible arguments like this are surrounded by slightly more padding, and are slightly more difficult to unpack and expose, but this is, in my opinion, a reasonable representation of arguments against cloning that are in fact made. And, for what its worth, made by persons more eminent than mere college students at that.

Enjoy!

Whew. Not certain if I got that entirely correct, so anybody who wants to provide feedback will be warmly welcomed.

A South Dakotan Solution?

2006-03-22T23:06:00.000-05:00

More on the South Dakota abortion ban from indianz.com:

When Governor Mike Rounds signed HB 1215 into law it effectively banned all abortions in the state with the exception that it did allow saving the mother's life. There were, however, no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. His actions, and the comments of State Senators like Bill Napoli of Rapid City, SD, set of a maelstrom of protests within the state.

Napoli suggested that if it was a case of "simple rape," there should be no thoughts of ending a pregnancy. Letters by the hundreds appeared in local newspapers, mostly written by women, challenging Napoli's description of rape as "simple." He has yet to explain satisfactorily what he meant by "simple rape."

The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.

"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty," she said to me last week. "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."

I have nothing but praise for Cecilia Thunder Fire and her decision not to take South Dakota’s indefensible abortion ban lying down. But it’s important to remember that a Planned Parenthood clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation is a band-aid, it is not a complete remedy. The real problem with anti-abortion legislation, in South Dakota and elsewhere, is displacement: the outsourcing of abortion to other states, to other countries, or even to private, unsupervised bedrooms thanks to do-it-yourself online manuals.

Cecilia Thunder Fire is doing an admirable thing, stepping up to the plate in an attempt to assist the South Dakotan women who would suffer most from the abortion ban: the socially and physically disadvantaged, and the victims of violence and abuse. But she should not bear that burden alone. South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, in his statement accompanying the signing of the anti-abortion legislation, said the following:

In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.

It’s an admirable goal, to protect “the most vulnerable and most helpless” in society, and it is one that South Dakota is failing at. Miserably.

Fallout in South Dakota: The Online How-To Abortion Manual

2006-03-22T22:49:00.000-05:00

Now available for the women of South Dakota: a detailed online abortion manual. This is the kind of thing that makes me really, truly wonder how much the people of South Dakota, and pro-life advocates nationwide, have thought through anti-abortion legislation like the piece enacted signed in South Dakota last month.

The thought of women performing abortions on themselves, or with the help of lay assistants in the privacy of their own home, is a fearful one. Of course, I don’t fault Molly Saves the Day for putting the information out there: I’m sure she’s not the first one, and nothing is to be gained from hiding the ball.

But here’s the real question: what do pro-life advocates truly hope to gain by banning abortion? A reduction in the overall numbers of abortions performed? Perhaps. But unquestionably at the expense of the health and safety of countless women and, regrettably, infants born after botched abortions.

For a glimpse into a hypothetical future where a South Dakota-esque stance on abortion is the governing law on the land, we need only look to Portugal, which has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe:

Under current Portuguese law, a women can have an abortion only if her life is in danger, to protect her mental or physical health, or in cases of rape, incest or fetal impairment….

Today, roughly 40,000 Portuguese women have illegal abortions each year, according to women's rights groups. Thousands more go abroad for the procedure, including to neighboring Spain, where the abortion law is interpreted far more liberally.

Moreover, pro-choice groups assert that hundreds of Portuguese women end up in hospitals each year because of complications resulting from illegal abortions.
"The women who have abortions are the poorest, the youngest, the oldest, the violence victims," said Maria Jose Magalhaes, a Porto-based member of UMAR, a women's rights lobby group. "The others -- the middle class, the literate women -- they have other possibilities," including access to private clinics staffed by competent medical personnel.

And, in case anybody needed reminding, the abortion laws in Portugal are actually less restrictive than in South Dakota, where there is not even an exception in cases of rape.

Unfortunately, it seems all too plausible to suggest that in their ardor for “winning” the abortion battle, pro-life enthusiasts have failed to consider what would happen if and when they “won.” And we all know, in an ongoing lesson that is now entering it’s fourth year, that simply declaring “mission accomplished” is not enough.

[Note: Many thanks to sugiero for drawing my attention to this story]

Maybe the Sky Really is Falling on Patents

2006-03-22T21:55:00.000-05:00

The New York Times editorial page weighed in on the patent reform issue today with it's own analysis of the situation: "patently ridiculous" (Hey. I (re)used that pun first!) The editorial is short on substance but it's further (and compelling) evidence that the patent problem is become a mainstream one. More on this shortly...

Patently Absurd: Why It's Time to Rethink Our Notion of the "Patent"

2006-03-20T11:17:00.000-05:00

Michael Crichton's guest column in today's New York Times is an amusing-bordering-on-hysterical polemic attacking the present criteria for patentability in this country.

From the patent issued in 1986 covering the biological relationship between elevated homocysteine and B-12 deficiency, Crichton traverses a slippery slope until he arrives at a nightmarish world of patents in which Philip K. Dick thought police prosecute the patent covering an "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication." The result: even in your own head you couldn't disagree with what I'm writing here without first shelling out some coin (although whether that would go to me or to Mr. Crichton is not entirely clear).

Crichton's histrionics are certainly not out of character. After all, Crichton's most recent book, "State of Fear", carried similar warnings about the dire consequences that will ensue unless society corrects its poisonous blend of law, policy, and science. In "State of Fear" the target was environmentalism; today it is patents.

I rankle against Crichton's slippery slope strategy (unless we draw the line here and now we will descend into a sci-fi patent hell) because it strikes me as needlessly alarmist. When it comes to slippery slopes there are two basic kinds: the logical slippery slope “holds that we are logically committed to allow B once we have allowed A” because there is “a genuine causal element linking the top of the slope with the bottom.”[1] The alternative is the empirical slippery slope which “tells us that the effect of accepting A will be that, as a result of psychological and social processes, we sooner or later will accept B.”[2]

In the case of patents, with the issue of what is a proper subject for a patent determined largely in the courts, it’s hard to see how our precedent-orientated system of law could place us on a logical slippery slope that would commit us to patenting B once we had patented A. The very notion of precedent is that at ruling on A governs future situations involving A, not B. It would take affirmative extensions and expansions by the courts of existing precedents in order to transition from A to B to C to the Philip K. Dick patent thought police. The alternative, the empirical slippery slope, is possible but hardly inevitable.

Nevertheless, though I disagree with the seeming inevitability with which Crichton portrays the descent into absurdity of our patent system, I think that his ultimate point is well taken. Our notion of what sorts of things and ideas are and are not patentable is one that is in need of a serious overhaul. As the lines between biological and technological and between discovery and invention grow increasingly opaque it is irresponsible and untenable to continue to hold these debates exclusively in the courtroom. What is "patentable" is a question of law only as long as society refuses to intercede and rewrite the laws.

Irrespective of what the Supreme Court decides with respect to the patentability of a biological link between elevated homocysteine and B-12 deficiency Crichton is right: that bare fact doesn't deserve to be protected by patents and fee requirements, and it likely shouldn’t even be a very close question. There are other, better ways to promote cooperative scientific and medical research than to patent everything under the sun (and, as Crichton might suggest, the sun itself, photosynthesis, and the concept of 'daytime'). That we have gotten to this point means that, in spite of all the difficulties involved in rethinking and reworking something as entrenched as the patent protection system, it is time to rethink when and why it is appropriate to issue a “patent.”

Update (3/20): Find the NY Times article discussing the Supreme Court case on this issue, LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories, which is scheduled for oral argument tomorrow. Also, the patent at issue is available here, and Metabolite's brief is available here.

[1] Shrecker, Ted, Elliot, et. al. “Ethical Issues Associated with the Patenting of Higher Life Forms.” Intellectual Property Policy. n. pag. Online. Available: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inippd-dppi.nsf/vwgeneratedintere/ip00095e.html.

[2]Id.

Two Heads are Better Than One

2006-03-19T12:59:00.000-05:00

At least for this incredible golden coin turtle. Zaphod Beeblebrox too.

Tipping Teapots and Blogs: How little blogs can become big

2006-03-18T12:42:00.000-05:00

I'm reading "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell (excellent through the first third or so) and it has me wondering two things:

1) What are the factors that make a blog "tip." Is it the one golden post that gets linked to over and over again (in Gladwellian terminology, an unusually "sticky" post)? Is it consistent, quality content that is finally recognized by an influential website or fellow blogger (Gladwell's "Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen")? Or is it something else, something more nuanced?

2) How do I make my own blog tip? Having hit the four month mark here at Farr Ago News I'm starting to see a modest uptick in traffic, but nothing yet to write home about. If anybody has suggestions specific to this blog - whether design, description, content, or anything else - I'd love to hear them.

It's "Sense of Humor", not "Censoring Humor"

2006-03-17T17:19:00.000-05:00

In Australia the government has shut down a satirical website that featured a faux-apology speech for the Iraq war, delivered by Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

And at the University Illinois the editor of the student newspaper has been fired for his decision to print the now infamous caricatures of Muhammed.

It's always good to be reminded that the freedom of speech* is alive and well worldwide.

* Many restrictions apply. Offer not good in Iran, China, or anywhere political leaders are struggling in the polls. Freedom not available to government employees, their family members, or anyone who has something critical to say. Your government reserves the right to modify the terms of this freedom at any time without notification.

Did you hear the one about the Bible and the Constitution?

2006-03-17T13:13:00.000-05:00

Reproduced below is an excerpt from the Baltimore Sun describing legislative hearings on a proposed amendment to the Maryland constitution that would ban gay marriage:

Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Republican who represents Harford and Cecil counties, engaged in an impassioned debate with Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor from American University, over the influence of the Bible on modern law.

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God - that is my belief," she said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals."

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

Some in the room applauded, which led committee chairman Sen. Brian E. Frosh, a Democrat from Montgomery County, to call for order. "This isn't a football game," he said.

That's about as pithy a summary of the what the church-state divide is supposed to represent as I've ever heard. Kudos to Professor Raskin, who is also running for office (he'd have my vote if I lived in Maryland), and to Uncertain Principles for clearing up the myth behind the confrontation.

Still, while Raskin's barb is amusing and well-taken, it exposes an even deeper fault-line in the supposed wall between church and state in this country. Why do we continue to permit and encourage witnesses (along with government officials, both appointed and elected) to swear an oath on the Bible? What kind of wall is it that affirms the most important instrument of our democracy by reference to the most important instrument of the religious majority of this country?

As an atheist the witness oath is of particular concern to me. Were I ever to take the witness stand, I would, of course, choose a non-secular affirmation rather than one of the religious "so help me God" variety. But I would worry very seriously, especially if I were in the unfortunate role of testifying defendant, that my failure to swear an oath to God would prejudice my testimony in the eyes of some jury members. These days our law is supposed to be blind to the religious beliefs of those that come before it. Which begs the question of why we allow, as their first act to the court, witnesses to either affirm not only that they will speak truthfully but also that they subscribe to a fundamentally religious point of view?

I guess, since atheists are more moral, it's probably not something I ought to worry about too much since. And we're taking over the country anyway. If I ever did do something that might be illegal I'm sure I could just go ahead and change the law.

That's what it says in the Constitution, right? Or was that the Bible?

The Promise of Nanotechnology: Delivered

2006-03-17T12:53:00.000-05:00

After all the talk about how nanotechnology is going to remake the world it has finally done just that. Well, sort of. Cal Tech scientists have produced a DNA map that resembles the Americas.

"The mini-map measures just a few hundred nanometres (billionths of a metre) across, smaller even than some bacteria - a scale of 1:200 trillion." The lead scientists write in the journal Nature that "their technique could find uses in the the emerging field of nanotechnology." Not clear on exactly what those uses might be, but they did also produce ~~an evil Wal-Mart icon~~ a smiley face.

In a possibly more practical development, nanotechnology is being used to return sight to hamsters that were previously blind.

"Food miles don't go the distance"

2006-03-17T12:28:00.000-05:00

That is the title of a BBC guest column by agriculture and land use professor Gareth Edwards-Jones. Edwards-Jones asks us to rethink the assumption that buying locally benefits the environment by reducing the number of food miles, measured in the distance that food travels from its production source to your mouth, that we consume.

The assumption is that by decreasing the distance that the food they buy is transported - try apples from a local orchard rather than ones shipped by train, plane, boat, and automobile all the way from another continent - consumers could do their own small part to help the environment through greenhouse gas reduction.
read more...
That, says Edwards-Jones, is a nice thought, but one which we have very little evidence to back up.

Unfortunately though, simply getting consumers to target food miles when making their purchasing decisions may not necessarily bring about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as these are emitted from many more places within food systems than just trucks, planes and automobiles.

For example, the production of fertiliser, pesticides, machinery and packaging all use energy - the generation of which will undoubtedly have contributed some greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

In addition, storing and cooking food also consumes energy.

Indeed, our research suggests that when considering UK grown potatoes, 48% of all energy used during the potato's life cycle is expended in the kitchen (the life cycle encompasses the sowing, growing, harvesting, packaging, storage, transport and consumption of potatoes).

One disadvantage to buying locally is that it is frequently, although not always, a more expensive option. I typically buy from the local farmer's cooperative but the premium that I pay for doing so is not insignificant given the overall size of my budget.

In choosing to buy local the perceived benefit to the environment is not the only motivating factor - a reality that Edwards-Jones recognizes. But, at least for me, it is certainly a motivation, and one that I'd heretofore taken for granted.

Edwards-Jones doesn't suggest that it's a mistaken assumption that a reduction in food miles produces environmentally beneficial results, he simply argues that it's an unsupported one. It may be correct, and it certainly seems to satisfy a common sense test in that it sounds like it should be correct. But common sense is no substitute for science, and sounding like a good idea is hardly enough to justify avoiding an actual empirical investigation.

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

All Abortion, All the Time. But Why?

2006-03-16T12:21:00.000-05:00

This is yet another post about the anti-abortion statute recently signed into law by South Dakota’s governor Mike Rounds last week. Actually, it’s a post about all the posts about that anti-abortion statute.

Anita Allen (aka “The Moralist”) suggests in her column “We don’t need to go there again” that the abortion debate has, more or less, been had already. Allen writes:

If news of the anti-abortion machinations in South Dakota brought on that sinking, "here we go again" feeling, you're not alone. Like you, I believe there's little to be gained from another round in America's abortion wars.

I certainly understand where she’s coming from – there was definitely a sinking sensation – and she's right, to a degree. But only to a degree.

From Allen’s perspective we’ve been through this all before. Although the court has changed the fundamental pro-life / pro-choice arguments haven’t changed, and neither has the basic technology and science of abortion. So why bother “putting the country through a bound-to- be-bitter rehash of the law and ethics of abortion"?

There are two answers to this question. The first is that, for those that view Roe v. Wade as a “loss”, a changing Supreme Court and the South Dakota statute (or whatever follows it next in the queue) represent a chance for “victory.” These are the people that keep political scorecards and care primarily about vanquishing their enemies. You say potato, they say potahto. And they won’t stop saying it until the Supreme Court holds that the Constitution permits only “potahto” as the proper pronunciation of the word.

So be it. Those people are never going to be satisfied, they aren’t going to be reasoned with, and all we can do is hope that there aren’t too many of them out there.

But there is second, and more insidious reason, why I think the abortion battle is going to happen again; and why, as Allen suggests, it is "bound-to-be-bitter." Bitter, protracted fights over moral issues are a powerful political tool and, though I can hardly take credit for this idea, I suspect that an ultimate resolution to the abortion debate, even one that resulted in a “victory” for the pro-life lobby, would be a political disaster for a certain segment of society.

Abortion – like gay marriage and latent xenophobia – is a hot-button topic that certain politicians and religious evangelicals use to motivate their constituents; I’m no political strategist but I believe the term is “firing up the base.” And nothing fires up the base better than a knock-down, drag-out, all-the-way-to-the-Supreme-F*$%ing-Court abortion battle.

Allen is right – there is no good reason to have this argument over again, because nothing substantive has changed. But that’s also exactly why we will have the argument all over again, because nothing substantive has changed. As long as abortion remains a hot-button political issue you can bet that the debate will continue to rage, and we’ll all be forced to listen to it.

Plan B: Grade F

2006-03-16T11:07:00.000-05:00

President Bush picked a new commissioner of the FDA yesterday, Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach. Dr. von Eschenbach has been the acting director since last September, and he is likely going to remain the acting director, and the acting director only, for the foreseeable future.

The reason is Plan B - the controversial emergency contraceptive pill that has politicians, and the abortion debate participants, at loggerheads. As long as the Plan B dispute remains unresolved, Democratic senators have vowed not to confirm Dr. von Eschenbach, although with his nomination pending, Dr. von Eschenbach can continue to head the FDA indefinitely as acting commissioner.

The real losers here are the women denied easy access to Plan B, a product that all scientific evidence suggests is safe and effective and only political dogmatism has prevented from attaining OTC status.

But this news brings no prizes for the rest of us either. The FDA is charged with evaluating, regulating, and monitoring the safety and efficacy of the substances that we put into our bodies. While Bush bickers with senators in Washington, the FDA is left languishing under a culture that allows politics to inform scientific decisions about health and safety, and that lacks a confirmed commissioner who is capable and willing to bring change to the administration.

As the Plan B dispute continues to drag on, the only thing that's clear is that both the politicians and the food and drug administration deserve a failing grade for their handling of this situation.

The Right Not to Believe (Part II)

2006-03-15T15:43:00.000-05:00

Apparently I was wrong. Mere days after lamenting the decreasing viability of atheism in the current American political climate I find out that, actually, atheists are taking over politics and have religion on the run. Especially the Christians.

My bad.

According to Mr. Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, we are now witnessing an increasingly "militant attempt to surgically remove religion from the public square and turn us into an atheistic society." And those atheists, not content with having excised God from biology and the evolution of life (the Thomas More Center made a valiant but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to save him by defending the Dover, PA school board in the Kitzmiller intelligent design case), are going after Christians, God's helpless and pious adherents, as well. As Thompson points out, "It’s almost like a genocide. It’s a sophisticated genocide."

With Christianity under siege, confronted at every turn by godless (and soulless and just generally ugly-looking and smelly) atheists, now's probably a good time to turn to one of the great defenders of the Christian faith, Jon Stewart, for some words of hope:

Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion.... perhaps around their necks? And maybe - dare I dream it? - maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.

Until that day comes, thank God there are men like Richard Thompson with the courage to speak out against these atheist atrocities.

~~Ahem.~~ Amen.

Who Really Cloned Dolly?

2006-03-15T14:57:00.000-05:00

Apparently that's a matter of some debate. While the dispute over who to credit for the much-heralded breakthrough in ovine reproduction continues, the good news is that there is no indication that ~~Hawng Woo Suk was involved in the research~~ the science itself is being called into question.

Science Federalism

2006-03-15T14:16:00.000-05:00

In Glenn McGee's newest column in The Scientist he discusses the "State of Science Funding" (excerpt from the column available for free on the AJoB blog, full column requires a login). McGee notes that, increasingly, scientific funding and policy decisions are migrating from Capitol Hill to statehouses nationwide, a process that he terms "science federalism."
read more...
As evidence McGee cites budget cuts at the NIH, the Senate's persistent opposition to all forms of stem cell research, and the rise of state programs designed to fund expansive new science initiatives:

So scientists and Congressional constituents are turning to the states. Citizens who kept their states from accepting others' trash in their landfill once chanted, "not in my backyard." In 2004, dissatisfied with national policy about stem cell research, Californians marched on Sacramento to ask the cash-strapped state for $3 billion for stem cell research.

More importantly, some states are debating large programs to fund innovative science in general. For example, New York's more than half-billion dollar investment in nanotechnology transformed the state overnight into a competitor not only with other states but also with the US government itself. Michigan put tens of millions of dollars from the proceeds of tobacco lawsuits into giant glass temples of science that rise above Ann Arbor, like new casinos in Nevada. Even tiny Rhode Island is building a fund to attract and retain scientists from a variety of disciplines.

Is science federalism a fad, or has McGee identified a real trend in the future of science funding and policymaking in this country? The answer will depend in large part on the success of these state-sponsored science initiatives. Procuring funds is, after all, only the first step. Despite a federal funding ban for new embryonic stem cell lines, the federal government provides tens of million of dollars annually for embryonic stem cell research (using ESC lines created before the ban went into effect). California, on the other hand, "has yet to award a dime of its $3 billion stem cell initiative."

Irregardless of the ultimate outcome of these state-sponsored initiatives their very presence makes it clear that, at least in certain parts of this country, citizens are increasingly unwilling to permit the federal government to act as the final arbiter on questions of science funding and policy. Which begs the following question: As emerging scientific technologies infiltrate the lives of individuals in increasingly obvious and intimate ways will we, as individuals, cede control over science funding and policy decisions to national (or even international) political institutions, however they are constituted, or is this becoming a truly local issue?

Intelligent Design to Quantum Mysticism (or Bad Biology to Bad Physics)

2006-03-14T22:45:00.000-05:00

"Reality is just a mental construct that we can rearrange and improve, if we are enlightened or determined enough."

That, as Dennis Overbye reports in today's New York Times, is the conclusion presented by two recent films: "What the #$!%* Do We Know!?" and "What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole". These cinematic purveyors of what is known as "quantum mysticism" are, it turns out, physics's answer to the bad biology of intelligent design.
read more...
Like intelligent design, the quantum mysticism notion that, at some level, our minds control the reality around us is premised on faith and scientific theories that are decades out of date. And both movements have acquired followers for the same basic reason: "We want to know that God loves us, that we are the pinnacle of evolution."

To an outside observer the parallels between quantum mysticism and intelligent design are readily apparent. But this discussion begs a further question: just what does the intelligent design community think of quantum mysticism?

If individual minds control the reality that surround them, does that mean that an intelligent designer created human beings who are, in their own fashion, intelligent designers themselves? Talk about constructing in one's own image. And if the original intelligent designer was, as many intelligent design proponents not-so-secretly speculate, the big G-O-D himself, does that mean that all of us, in the process of manipulating the reality around us, are guilty of "playing god"? Time to focus our mental energy and magic up some bigger britches.

Seriously, somebody needs to answer these questions for me.

Saying No to (Expensive) Drugs?

2006-03-14T14:35:00.000-05:00

A recent NYT article discusses the sudden price increase of a cancer drug, nitrogen mustard (marketed as Mustargen), that has recently dramatically increased in price despite the fact that has been available, unchanged, for decades.

The article deals primarily with the lack of regulation (and, indeed, rational bases beyond pure profit) governing drug pricing, in particular price increases. Included in this discussion is the following pasage:

And once a company sets a price, government agencies, private insurers and patients have little choice but to pay it. The Food & Drug Administration does not regulate prices, and Medicare is banned from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments.

Well that's true enough. But "little choice" is not equivalent to "no choice". The always available alternative, that of choosing not to take the medicine at all rather than pay an exorbitant fee, is one that the article fails to touch upon.
read more...
We - as individuals, consumers, patients - constantly engage in health tradeoffs. We forgo sunscreen because we'd like a tan, even though it increases our risk of skin cancer. We eat french fries even after a second bypass operation because a burger just isn't a burger without them. We drive seven hours to visit relatives for the holidays, rather than fly, because airplane tickets are too expensive. All of these decisions represent common enough instances in which we are willing to trade an increased probability of harm to ourselves for some other good, e.g., an attractive tan, a pleasurable meal, or some extra money in the bank.

So why, when drug prices soar, are we so unwilling to say "enough is enough"? As drug manufacturers "increasingly point to the intrinsic value of their medicines as justification for [high] prices", perhaps its time to reexamine the categorically high intrinsic valuation of medicines.

Keep in mind that there are very few drugs on the market that are 100% efficacious. Taking an AIDS drug is not a cure, indeed it doesn't guarantee any improvement whatsoever. All it can offer is a probability of success, however "success" is defined for that particular drug-disease pairing. And, of course, it offers hope.

And, I have to imagine, it is hope that ultimately does much to explain the individual patient-consumer's tolerance for the spiraling increase of medicines and treatments. Skin cancer? That's in the future. A fatal car accident? A non-specific probability. A disease like AIDS or cutaneous lymphoma (the drug discussed in the Times article) is a present reality, often painful both physically and emotionally, and medicines like Mustargen offer the possibility of a solution.

The elephant in the room - lurking behind complaints about high drug prices, as well as debates over wrongful birth (see below), end of life care, etc. - is whether all lives are intrinsically worth preserving, regardless of the cost.

At least in the abstract there are few of us, if any, that support this position. The value of a statistical life is a common calculation for many an administrative agency, government organization, private employer...even for the individual. Ask whether the FDA is justified in preserving 12 statistical lives at a cost of $300 million and people will haggle over numbers, but they won't haggle over the basic principle that some risk of harm is inevitable in the crowded world in which we live. To attempt to prevent the loss of all lives would bring society to a grinding halt.

And yet, as soon as you put a face to the statistic - as soon as it is you or I who stand a 1 in 1,000 chance of death from a disease, rather than an unnamed, unknown individual who stands a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by an exploding radiator - the game changes dramatically. Expenses that would never be countenanced if undertaken for the benefit of a faceless statistical population group are accepted without second thought - after all, when it comes to your health money is no object, right?

I'm not so sure. While I can understand the emotional and personal elements involved, I also think that there is a certain amount of unthinking submission to the idea that our own health, or the health of our loved ones, is not the proper subject of a cost-benefit analysis.

To some extent I believe that attitude is correct. Money is, after all, just bits of green paper (or more accurately these days, bits representing ones and zeros in electronic bank accounts) and you can't take it with you when you go. Then again, very few of us will leave behind nothing more than our bank accounts. There will be friends, family members, and the rest of our society which we have touched in various ways.

Ultimately, like Socrates in the Apology, I find fault with the notion that death should be abhorred and life should be preserved at all costs. If you throw your grandmother in front of the bus to save your own life, will you regret that decision later? Similarly, if you bankrupt your family scooping up long-shot medications that, at best, will extend your life by a few months or years, is that a justifiable decision?

I'm not advocating any sort of strict utilitarianism here - this isn't a kill the old to feed the young proposition of any sort. All I'm suggesting, to go back to the article that started this whole discussion, is that there is always an alternative to over-priced drugs: just saying no.

Rewriting the Rules: Now That's Cheating

2006-03-14T14:15:00.000-05:00

Barry Bonds is in the news. I'd post a link to an article discussing the recent SI story, the book, the ongoing allegations...but if you can't locate one yourself you're just not trying. Still, just to be polite, here's a link to the SI preview story.

I've written before on the more general topic of doping in sports, and there's so much noise on the subject these days that it's easy to imagine that all athletes have turned into cheaters, they're all guilty as hell, and sports as we know it is at a crisis. In what increasingly reminds me of a witchhunt, fans and writers (especially a certain cadre of writers that seems to relish the opportunity to take athletes down a peg or two) are asking two basic questions, over and over again: 1) How guilty are they? and 2) How many records/medals/titles are we going to strip from them?

But there is another question that is prior both temporaly and logically, that isn't being asked: 1) Were they even cheating?
read more...
All the sound and fury surrounding the steroid allegations directed at Bonds misses a key point: steroids weren't a banned substance in the world of professional baseball until last year. A year in which Bonds played only a handful of games. And you know, there are good reasons why we don't approve of ex post facto laws. Fact is, there's a very, very good chance that Bonds, whatever else he may be (liar, poor role model, over-the-hill ballplayer, etc.) is not a "cheater", at least not if we refrain from rewriting the rules to suit our cause.

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "[T]hose who choose ... to sail as close as possible to the wind inevitably run some risk." What Holmes meant, I believe, was that part of pushing the envelope, whether in the realm of law or sport, is knowing that the boundaries between legal and illegal aren't always clear, and even legal courses of action may not be entirely risk-free.

Bonds sailed close to the wind and for that he will be punished with a tarnished reputation, millions lost in endorsements, and, potentially, future physical effects from his steroid use. From where I sit it looks like Bonds has plenty to worry about as it is - there's no need to go back and rewrite the rules just because we don't like the guy. That's just cheating.

The Right Not to Believe

2006-03-12T22:22:00.000-05:00

“Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for.” So says Slavoj Zizek in Defenders of the Faith, an editorial in today’s New York Times.

What, however, about the American atheists on the other side of the Atlantic? Zizek notes that “what makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post.”

And in America? Not only is atheism an obstacle to public office – quick, name one prominent politician who is openly agnostic, let alone an atheist – it is becoming an increasingly marginalized belief. With both democrats and republicans attempting to appeal to voters of faith there is little welcome for the confirmed atheist.
read more...
These days discussions begin and end with ideas for bringing together people of different faiths, or appealing to faith-based values that cut across political lines. There is hardly any room for those of us who would like to join the discussion from a firmly non-religious point of view.

I am an atheist. An atheist, not an agnostic. For many years I was uncertain about the existence of a higher being, an organizing force in the universe. In the absence of any affirmative evidence that I found credible I was skeptical that such a “god” existed, but as a skeptic I wasn’t willing to rule out the possibility.

It was only recently, after reading the essay “A Will to Believe” by William James, that I became convinced that hedging my bets as an agnostic was not a tenable philosophical or intellectual position. Believe or disbelieve – there is no maybe. Further convinced that Pascal’s Wager was nothing more than a Hobson’s Choice – you cannot simply choose to truly believe in something that you don’t truly believe in – I became a confirmed atheist.

And I know that I’m not alone.

And so I bristle, ever so slightly, when I hear politicians include people of all different faiths in their political discussions: where “faith” is taken to mean “religious affiliation.” The belief in a god is common ground to which politicians on both sides of the aisle appeal. And the atheists are seen as trouble-makers – calling into question even this seemingly basic proposition. Atheists are silenced because they don’t believe in a god, they’re just asked to keep that fact to themselves, and out of the political discourse.

Atheism has always been a barrier to political office in this country, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon. My fear is that it is increasingly becoming a barrier to political participation as well.

Cephalopod for Governator

2006-03-09T11:47:00.000-05:00

It's even cooler than Terminator 2 - because it's real. This isn't exactly new, and it isn't exactly news, but it's worth a watch anyhow. Take a look as Roger Hanlon, a marine biologist at Wodes Hole, stumbles upon a cephalopod (Octopus vulgaris) pretending to be a rock. This is, without question, one of the more remarkable animal videos I've seen if only because, in an age where practically everything we see seems to have benefited from some CGI-enhancement, there are no special effects.

Anyone interested in reading more should pick up a copy of the most recent issue (April 2006) of Discover, which contains an interesting short piece on what cephalopods can teach us about language.

Low Times and High Irony in South Dakota

2006-03-06T22:49:00.000-05:00

South Dakota governor Mike Rounds today did what all good governors are supposed to do and put his state squarely on the front page of the national news. Unfortunately, it's not good news - at least not from this vantage point.

Rounds signed a bill that will ban most abortions in South Dakota - if it is upheld in the courts. The bill criminalizes all abortions save for those necessary to save the woman's life - it makes no exceptions for rape, incest, or for any other mitigating circumstances.
read more...
Rounds, along with pro-lifers nationwide, see the South Dakota bill as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. And, in case the Supreme Court needed a refresher, Rounds made sure to point out, in his comments accompanying the bill, that the court has reversed itself in the past:

The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible. For example, in 1896, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Plessy versus Ferguson case that a state could require racial segregation in public facilities if the facilities offered to different races were equal. However, fifty-eight years later, the Supreme Court reconsidered that opinion and reversed itself in Brown versus Board of Education. It proclaimed that separate could not produce equal. The 1954 Court realized that the earlier interpretation of our Constitution was wrong.

Am I the only one that thinks Rounds' choice of legal precedent is a questionable one? Yes Plessy and its companion Brown represent an issue that similarly divided the country the way that the abortion question does today.

But there the comparisons end.

The Warren Court, in overruling Plessy, made a clear statement that the imposition of the majority's view upon a minority group (in this case minority schoolchildren) unable to adequately protect their own interests would not be tolerated in this country.

If the current Roberts court looks to Plessy and to Brown, as Rounds suggests, they should overwhelming and unhesitatingly affirm Roe v. Wade. The South Dakota bill, much like the statute mandating segregated railway cars that was at issue in Plessy, seeks to impose the will of the majority on a largely defenseless minority. Today, in South Dakota, that minority is composed of the numerous women, many of whom are below the voting age, who are unable to vote their opinion, unwilling (for fear of retribution and condemnation) to voice their opinion, or both.

Rounds may win his abortion fight, but his lawyers better dig up some more compelling legal precedent before they hit the courtroom.

Evolution and UFOs: together at last

2006-02-25T20:28:00.000-05:00

Evolution: contravener of biblical literalism, destroyer of fragile faiths...perpetuator of UFO conspiracy theories? Normally I wouldn't post something this ridiculous (I'm not trying to cultivate a Daily News sort of readership here) but this was actually too amusing to pass up:

The UFO conspiracy, Riddle argues in a stern, drill-sergeant delivery, is meant to scare society. “But the scariest [thing] of all—banned by courts, schools and politicians—is the Bible . . . Evolution is the foundation for this whole train of thinking

Pursuing Science in the Country of the Blind

2006-02-25T13:30:00.000-05:00

Questions about scientific research standards and ethics appear frequently in the news these days: from debating the appropriate guidelines for scientific research (starting with South Korean’s cloning debacle) to what type of scientific research ought to be conducted (or banned) in the first instance (those pesky embryonic stem cells, for instance). At a time when the press to come to a consensus about what direction scientific research ought to take seems to be intensifying, and important scientific policy decisions await on the horizon, I have a slightly different question: are we sure we can trust our own advice?

Forget for a moment where these scientific recommendations come from – the President’s Council, Congress, general referendums, as-yet-unformed advisory groups, or elsewhere – and let’s ask ourselves about the shared assumptions and beliefs, common to all of us at the most basic level as human beings living in a social society, that lie at the heart of our beliefs about what science can and should accomplish.

What the hell am I talking about? Thanks for asking. I was re-reading The Country of the Blind, by H.G. Wells, and stumbled upon the following passage, which offers a helpful illustration of what I’m getting at:
read more...

"Those queer things that are called the eyes, and which exist to make an agreeable depression in the face, are diseased, in the case of Nunez, in such a way as to affect his brain. They are greatly distended, he has eyelashes, and his eyelids move, and consequently his brain is in a state of constant irritation and distraction."

"Yes?" said old Yacob. "Yes?"

"And I think I may say with reasonable certainty that, in order to cure him complete, all that we need to do is a simple and easy surgical operation--namely, to remove these irritant bodies."

"And then he will be sane?"

"Then he will be perfectly sane, and a quite admirable citizen."

"Thank Heaven for science!" said old Yacob, and went forth at once to tell Nunez of his happy hopes.

Wells asks us to tease out the fundamental assumptions that are taken for granted in our pursuit of science (or medicine, or biotechnology). Some of which might appear to a disinterested (perhaps non-human? or non-acculturated?) observer to be slightly bizarre or problematic.

Should we re-examine our obsession with the extension of life? What about our quest for improved and enhanced performance in all aspects of our lives? Or our belief that human beings, in some important way, are special? These are themes of the most general nature, certainly not an exhaustive list, that act as often implicit contributors to our scientific discourse.

But perhaps this is not delving deeply enough. Are there unstated assumptions and biases so deep-seated and ingrained that we lack all capacity to conceptualize them?

These are the biggest of questions and ones that I fully recognize are difficult to answer in a helpful manner. Nevertheless, as we either praise or condemn, depending on your point of view, the development of science and technology it’s worth a moment of reflection to wonder at the motivations that underlie the whole grand scheme.

Industrial Strength Taxonomy

2006-02-25T11:10:00.000-05:00

Normally I don’t bother writing about articles that appear in subscription only journals and magazines, for obvious reasons. However, I can’t resist a plug for Brian Fisher and his ants from Madagascar.

“Antsy in Madagascar” appears in the March 2006 issue of Discover Magazine and is nearly worth the price of admission on its own. Fisher is a new breed of entomologist who has taken a passion for finding, identifying, and cataloguing the world’s species, ants in this case, to an unprecedented level. E.O. Wilson, a man who knows a thing or two about ants himself, describes Fisher’s methods as “industrial-strength taxonomy.”
read more...
Ultimately Fisher’s goal is to get people excited about ants. To identify and catalog all of the estimated 22,000 ant species worldwide (about 12,000 are currently described), to make all of that information freely available online, and, in so doing, to give people the tools and information that allow them to “be as gung ho about [ants] as he is.”

Gung ho about ants? Fine, maybe not the boring little pavement ant, tetramorium caesptium, that used to regularly invade my childhood bedroom when it rained. But what about Meliosstarsus:

It’s the only ant genus where the adults produce silk. The whole gigantic head is a big silk gland. The front legs have been modified into silk brushes, to pull out silk and stretch it to where it is needed. The funniest thing about this ant is that its middle legs go up instead of down because it lives in tunnels. Put it in your hand, and it can’t walk.

Very neat. Not quite neat enough to inspire me to enroll in graduate school in entomology but neat enough to send me poking around on antweb.org, Fisher’s brainchild, long enough to make a contribution of my own.

And that, in the end, is Fisher’s goal: the democratization, and the popularization, of ants.

Insanity Democracy in Action

2006-02-24T10:48:00.000-05:00

And it begins (again).

South Dakota is likely to become the first state (Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky are all in line as well) to ban abortion in virtually all situations. The bill has already passed both state houses and awaits only the signature of governor Michael Rounds, who isn’t expected to veto it.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades. Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

If this bill is signed into law and upheld in the courts (and, sadly, I believe that it will be) it will represent a travesty for individual liberty in this country. I’m sorry but I want to meet the father or mother who has had their child raped, had her request an abortion, and then turned her town out of concern for the fetus.
read more...
There are, I suppose, reasonable differences of opinion on whether a woman should have the right to terminate a healthy, willfully consummated pregnancy and, if so, under what circumstances. But I fail to see how there can be any justification for punishing once again the victim of rape or incest by forcing her to continue with an unasked for and unwanted pregnancy.

Drown 'em out, don't throw 'em in jail

2006-02-22T19:39:00.001-05:00

While Austria is jailing David Irving for his unconscionable views a group of bikers known as the Patriot Guard is trying a different approach with anti-gay activist, and complete lunatic, Fred Phelps.

The Patriot Guard, a group of bikers more than 5,000 strong, travels in groups around the country to cheer respectfully at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq. Why on Earth, you might reasonably wonder, are they cheering, respectfully or otherwise, at a funeral? To drown out the jeers and the taunts of Phelps and his followers:
read more...

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protestors carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs - explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

Wow. Without question it is men like Fred Phelps that make us wish, for just a moment, that we could, like Austria, toss certain people directly into jail, no trial, no passing go, no nothing. But unless you're an enemy combatant that's not how this country works and, so, we should acknowledge the efforts of the members of the Patriot Guard to drown out Phelps and co. while state legislatures in Kentucky and elsewhere seek to find a democratic solution to the problem.

The whole situation initially struck me as confusing and bizarre. And in some respects it is. But it's a lot more rational and appropriate than just throwing someone in jail and having done with it.

Stem Cells by Osmosis

2006-02-22T12:04:00.000-05:00

Almost a week ago Michael Gazzaniga, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, wrote that all clones are not the same. What Gazzaniga meant, more precisely, was that all forms of cloning are not the same. An important point to make after Bush’s state of the union characterization of all forms of cloning as “the most egregious abuses of medical research.”

But Gazzaniga doesn’t stop there, continuing on to attack the current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research (ESRC), especially the president’s ban on developing new stem cell lines.
I wholeheartedly agree with Gazzaniga that the restrictive ESRC climate in the United States is a problem, and I find his critique of pursuing, for reasons of political expediency, alternative technologies at the expense of the best known research avenues particularly persuasive.
read more...
But I think that his attempt to redefine “human life” is, unfortunately, unlikely to be successful. Gazzaniga is right to recognize the clear dualism that causes us to view fully developed human beings – our friends, family members, even our enemies – differently from a cluster of embryonic cells. But, realistically, I believe this is something that most opponents of ESRC are implicitly, if not explicitly, aware of.

The more serious obstacle standing in the way of ESRC is not uncommon: an inertial resistance to new technology, a barrier of which Gazzaniga is well aware:

At the most recent meeting of our bioethics council, Patricia Churchland, a distinguished philosopher from the University of California at San Diego, observed that through history, medical innovations — from vaccines to anesthesia — have been initially resisted only to later be widely accepted. It will be the same with stem cells.

And in this prediction I think Gazzaniga is entirely correct. As with so many other technologies it will not be the reasoned examination of what constitutes “human life” that ultimately leads to the acceptance of ESRC. Quite frankly, that's just too much work for too many members of the general public who have other things to worry about at the end of the day.

The much more likely scenario is one that makes use of stem cell's own inertial energy to ultimately legitimize ESRC. The key to unlocking the political chains that gird ESRC is not to reconceptualize “human life” as a term inapplicable to a cluster of cells, but to reconceptualize a cluster of cells as no more extraordinary than being given a vaccine, or believing that the Earth is round.

Like it or not, stem cells are here to stay. We just need to give that fact a little bit more time to sink in.

Teaching Reporting the Controversy

2006-02-21T22:54:00.000-05:00

The Discovery Institute started a petition skeptical of Darwinian evolution in 2001. Since then, according to an article by Kenneth Chang in today's NY Times, the petition has been signed by 514 scientists and engineers, although "only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution."

Why, exactly, is this significant? It's hardly breaking news that the Discovery Institute's intelligent design position is unpopular among scientists generally, and even more so among biologists. Which the Times piece confirms. Also reported: many of the signers "are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs." Unless you've been ~~detained at Guantanamo~~ living in a cave recently you already knew this.
read more...
It's not at all clear what real news is being reported in this article. And why do I care? While the Discovery Institute has been thus far largely unsuccessful in carrying out its "teach the controversy" attack on evolution, it has been indisputably successful on a parallel front: "report the controversy."

As the saying goes, "there's no publicity that's bad publicity." When the Discovery Institute, or other advocates of creationism or intelligent design, enters the public forum and inflicts its thinly veiled religious agenda upon public school systems in Kansas or Ohio or Pennsylvania the media, along with serious scientists and concerned citizens, has a responsibility to shine a light on the situation. But I wonder if at other times, now being one of them, whether it might not be prudent to allow the Discovery Institute and others, already reeling from recent setbacks in Ohio and Pennsylvania, to languish on the sidelines of the public debate.

A Prison Term is only a Microphone

2006-02-20T20:46:00.000-05:00

Today British Historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for purportedly denying that there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz death camp. Irving, a "notorious holocaust denier", is a condemnable figure, and his statements are demonstrably false. Nevertheless, I wonder at the wisdom of sentencing the man to jail. Men who shout in the public square that the holocaust never happened (or that the Earth is flat, or the moon made of cheese) are denounced as maniacs and crackpots, ultimately they are ignored by most. But imprison them and they may attain the status of martyrdom, fueling conspiracy theories.

I don't know the Austrian legal status of free speech but I contend that in Austria, as is the case anywhere, the best weapon against harmful, hateful, unconscionable speech is truth, not a muzzle. Present the truth to those that are not already aware and let men like David Irving scream into a howling wind of public indifference.

The Personal Genome Project

2006-02-16T16:42:00.000-05:00

The AJoB blog has drawn my attention to the Personal Genome Project (PGP) which is exactly what it sounds like: an attempt to make personal genome sequences readily (and affordably) available. The PGP is certainly not running this race alone - The Scientist has a nice article entitled "Beyond Sanger: Toward the $1,000 Genome - but I'm amenable to the open-source nature of the PGP.

The Cost of a Cure

2006-02-16T14:55:00.000-05:00

The Times has an interesting article about Avastin, a colon cancer drug for which its maker Genetech plans to charge $100,000 a year. That steep price tag raises a number of questions, most notably a suite of difficult ones suggested by the conundrum of a drug that is potentially both life-saving and bankrupting.

It's not difficult for me to imagine that there are some colon cancer sufferers out there who wish that Avastin, with its astronomical price tag, simply didn't exist. I think there is mentality, especially among certain segments of our society, that while government agencies and insurance companies may place a dollar value on a life, no amount should be too much when it comes to saving the life of a friend or a loved one.
read more...
Well that philosophy is certainly being put to the test. How do individuals handle the presence of life-saving drugs that they simply can't (or won't) pay for because to do so would be financially crippling for themselves or for their family? How does a doctor tell a patient that a treatment that might save her life is too expensive? And is anything going to stop the rising cost of some of these drugs? Will it require some form of regulatory intervention?

Finally, an out of left field question for general consideration: Do we feel differently about the cancer patient who refuses a life-saving treatment for economic reasons than we do about the cancer patient who desires euthanasia to avoid being a financial burden on her family? If so, why?

Ohio is OK

2006-02-16T14:30:00.000-05:00

It's almost old news by this point: on Tuesday the Ohio Board of Education voted 11 to 4 to strike from their curriculum a biology lesson plan that mandated critical analysis of evolution. The decision, another setback for the intelligent design campaign, is an about face for a state which was the first to adopt special standards for criticizing evolution in 2002.

The decision is the right one - singling out evolution alone among scientific theories for critical analysis is clearly inappropriate. However, as I wrote last month, it's important for the champions of Darwinian evolution not to tip the scales too far in the direction of unquestioning acceptance of evolution. All scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, deserve to be critically analyzed by the students to whom they are taught. After all, it is that analysis that prompts the important, searching questions that help move science, including the science of evolution, forward.

No matter how many courtroom victories evolution claims, if it is ultimately taught in biology classrooms nationwide as a set of fixed, settled principles about which nothing more remains to be said, it will be a loss for science.

Happy Valentine's Day

2006-02-14T23:39:00.000-05:00

How many words is this one worth? Happy Valentine's Day all.