United Kingdom Protects Science Budget

 
From NatureNews: Brown pledges to protect science during downturn.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would not let science "become a victim of the recession" in a speech today at the University of Oxford.

Speaking to an invited audience, Brown said he would defend investment in science by maintaining the ring fence around the science budget, so that it cannot be raided to prop up other areas competing for public funds such as the health service and industry.

He signalled his aim for Britain to move away from an economy "heavily centred" on financial services and towards one focused on science.

....

Responding to Brown's speech, Nick Dusic, director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK (CaSE), a London-based lobby group says, "The prime minister is absolutely right that now is the time to show the world the UK is the place to do science. Unfortunately he needed to go further today in his commitments because other countries are raising the bar by making science and engineering central to their economic recovery."

Dusic added that just maintaining current spending commitments will mean that Britain loses ground against countries, like the United States, that are giving science a huge boost within their stimulus packages.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are cutting the budgets of the major granting agencies in Canada.

How stupid is that?

---

Ohmygod! Not that "Framing" Thing again?

Yes, it's the old framing argument rearing its ugly head. I know, I know, we've probably said just about everything that could be said and we should just agree to disagree. Nisbet and Mooney want us to "spin" science in the interests of promoting their favorite policies. Scientists resist because that's not what science does.

Now we have a posting by Philip H. on The Intersection that makes the issue clearer than ever before. I'm sure Nisbet and Mooney are happy.

Philip H. is discussing a Washington Post article about American voters [The American Voter]. Here's what he says about the scientific aspects of the study ...

Equally interesting to me as a scientist and framer of scientific messages, is how the writer talked about the academic work she reported on. She talks about academic conclusions from a multi-year study "couched in academic understatement." My guess is the social scientists here were doing the usual, scientifically correct thing and describing their data and conclusions within the statistically appropriate confidence intervals. Probably something along the lines of: "our results appear to apply, statistically to the American population within a 95% probability. Alternately, bootstrapped ANCOVA without regression might have yielded..." That may be correct in a talk to the National Academy of Public Administration, but somehow it always leads newspaper reporters.... to wonder what the academics area really saying, and try to get "other sides" of the story. In other words - this is bad framing for an general audience. Thankfully, in this particular case, the "fairness in reporting" stchick works - and it contributes to the reporting. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, it doesn't.

This is a very important point, one that the "framers" have never made explicitly. The scientific reporting of information may be okay for scientists but when you're talking to non-scientists you've got to be non-scientific. The "scientifically correct" approach just won't do for the hoi-polloi.

I know, I know, scientists hate to make firm conclusions when the data do contain the possibility of error or omission. They even hate to make black and white statements when there is a really LOW probability of error. I took those courses too.

I'm so glad he took the courses. Now he knows how scientists are supposed to behave.

But this is a public policy debate. It is about how to get American voters more engaged, or if they can be more engaged. And if the truth is Americans are one or two issue voters who inherit their political allegiances like a house or a trust fund, those facts tells us something. And no one will fault the scientists for saying so directly, and with out describing the confidence interval.

It's not true that "no one will fault the scientists." I will fault the scientists for lying or distorting the scientific truth by omitting the qualifications. And I'm not alone. Many other scientists think the same way and that's why scientists are not jumping on the spin framing bandwagon (see Going Public with the Scientific Process for a better approach).

---

[Photo Credit: Blick Art Materials]

A Case of Plagiarism

 
The blogosphere is all atwitter about the publication of a paper titled "Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence". This is the train wreck of a paper that PZ Myers blogged about a few days ago [What Happened to the "Peers" on this Paper?].

Everyone needs to know that the contents of this paper were not only stupid but also plagiarized. The authors couldn't even come up with their own words to explain their silly ideas. For the latest additions to a long list of stolen paragraphs see Commentary: Neither buried nor treasure.

The guilty journal is Proteomics. The editors are not blameless.

---

Canada's Science Technology and Innovation Council

 
In response to the dismissal of Canada's Science Advisor, the Harper government proposes to get science advice from someone other than scientists. They have established the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. This body will not advise the Prime Minister or members of parliament. It reports to the Minister of Industry. Here's the mandate ...

The Council is an advisory body that provides the Government of Canada with external policy advice on science and technology issues, and produces regular national reports that measure Canada's science and technology performance against international standards of excellence.

We all know what this means. The role of the council is not to give scientific advice, it's to promote and enhance technology.

As far as I'm concerned, this is worse than having no science advisor at all. What it does is establish a group of people who will masquerade as real scientists and discourage the government from seeking real scientific advice about important science policies like science education and funding of basic research.

Let's look at the people who have agreed to serve on this council [Biographical Notes]. You can judge for yourself whether this group is going to give good advice on science policy or whether they are going to advise on technology issues that can benefit Canada.

Ask yourself whether you would take advice from this group on oil platforms in the arctic ocean, global climate change, stem cell research, evolution vs creationism, or investing in a large telescope. Of course you wouldn't. The fear is that by having this group, Harper can avoid having to seek out other sources of advice. I think it's better to have no "science advisors" at all than to have sham advisors [We Hardly Knew Ye].

• Chair: Dr. Howard Alper: A distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the University of Ottawa. He has an impressive record of scientific research.


• Dr. Francesco Bellini: Chairman, President and CEO of Neurochem, a drug company. Received his Ph.D. in chemistry in 1977 and worked in a drug company as a researcher until 1984.


• Mr. Eric Bergeron: He has "18 years of global international management experience in high-tech industries, including business development, sales, technology and finance. He is the Founder of Optosecurity Inc., a venture-funded company that develops breakthrough security products for the Transportation and Critical Infrastructure markets."


• Mr. Richard Dicerni: Deputy Minister, Dept. of Industry.


• Mr. David B. Fissel: President of ASL Environmental Sciences, a company that funds projects related to the ocean. "Most of these projects involved input to the design of offshore oil and gas facilities, port development, or environmental assessment and monitoring for coastal and deepwater developments."


• Mr. Peter MacKinnon: Former Dean of Law and currently President of the University of Saskatchewan.


• Dr. Terence Matthews: "Dr. Terry Matthews is the non-executive Chairman of a number of technology companies including Mitel Corporation, March Networks Corporation, DragonWave Corporation, Newport Networks and Solace Systems."


• Mrs. Marie-Lucie Morin: Deputy Minister, International Trade.


• Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum: Currently she is Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University. She used to be a highly respected scientist working in the field of epidemiology.


• Mr. David O'Brien: "Chairman of the Board of EnCana and Chairman of the Board of the Royal Bank of Canada. He is a director of Molson Coors Brewing Company and TransCanada Corporation. Mr. O'Brien is also a director of Focus Energy Trust, the E & P Management Partnership (a private energy investment company) and Spur Resources Ltd. (a private exploration company)."


• Mr. J. Robert S. Prichard: President and Chief Executive Officer of Torstar Corporation, which publishes the Toronto Star. Rob is a former lawyer and the former President of the University of Toronto.


• Mr. Morris Rosenberg: Deputy Minister of Health.


• Dr. Guy Rouleau: A scientist interested in the genetic basis of neurological disease at the Université de Montréal.


• Dr. W. A. (Sam) Shaw: "President and CEO of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (1997-present), one of the country's leading technical institutes." (I'm not familiar with this leading institute.)


• Dr. Molly Shoichet: A scientist who "is an expert in the study of Polymers for Regeneration which are materials that promote healing in the body. Dr. Shoichet's laboratory has numerous patents (published and pending) on drug delivery and scaffold design. She has founded two spin-off companies from her laboratory."


• Dr. Mihaela Ulieru: "Dr. Ulieru holds the NSERC Canada Research Chair in Adaptive Information Infrastructures for the e-Society at the University of New Brunswick where she founded and directs the Adaptive Risk Management Lab - an international leading centre for research and innovation in the design of holistic security ecosystems and resilient information infrastructures that link critical infrastructures."


• Dr. Harvey Weingarten: Currently President of the University of Calgary, he used to be a psychologist.


• Mr. Rob Wildeboer: "He is the Executive Chairman and co-founder of Martinrea International Inc., a leading Canadian auto parts supplier, specializing in automotive fluid systems and metal forming products, with leading edge expertise in hydroforming, hot stamping, stamping, laser trimming and welding."

---

We Hardly Knew Ye

 
Arthur Carty has been dismissed and he won't be replaced when he leaves on March 31.

I'll let that shocking news sink in for a minute or two ....

♪♪ ...musical interlude ..... ♪♪♪

So, are you properly outraged? No?

If you're like 99.99% 0f Canadians you probably didn't know that Arthur Carty is Canada's National Science Advisor. Probably 99% of Canadians didn't even know we had a National Science Advisor.

It really doesn't matter 'cause soon we won't have one. Stephan Harper is eliminating the office of National Science Advisor. Good riddance, I say. I've seen no evidence that our science advisor ever did anything so I'm not going to get too upset about this. Check out the website for the Office of the National Science Advisor. Boooooring ....

Does Canada need a National Science Advisor? No. We already have people who are well-placed to advise the government about science. The heads of the granting councils, for example (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council).

Of course, they haven't done a very good job either. The head of CIHR recently resigned after a couple of devastating grant competitions where the level of funding was far below what was necessary. Nevertheless, in an ideal world those are the people who should be advising the government on science policy.¹ It's not helpful to have a third party who has no chips on the table.

Lots of people disagree with me (). Over on Canadian Cynic LuLu thinks this is just a reflection of the science illiteracy of the Conservatives [Science? We don't need science.]. That's true but it's not going to be fixed by having a science advisor who hides out in the Department of Industry.

PZ Myers runs a little blog on the edge of Minnesota, near North Dakota, and a few miles south of Canada. He's secretly delighted that our Canadian Prime Minister is behaving as badly as George Bush [Congratulations Canada!]. I don't care. Our science advisor has only been around for three years but that's long enough to demonstrate that it's a useless job. I understand that Americans are upset about the demotion of their Presidential Science Adviser. I guess he was much more successful that Arthur Carty was in Canada. I dunno.

---

1. Along with Presidents of scientific societies, Presidents of leading universities, prominent scientists and teachers, and taxi drivers.

[The title of this posting is from an old Irish anti-war song called Johnny I Hardly Knew ye. Check out this version on YouTube.]

Matt Nisbet Endorses Francis Collins for Presidential Science Advisor - The Kiss of Death

 
Some people have suggested that E.O. Wilson or Neil deGrasse Tyson might be good candidates for the next Presidential science advisor. Matt Nisbet doesn't agree [An Endorsement for Francis Collins as Pres. Science Advisor].

Just one problem: Most science popularizers such as Wilson or Tyson don't have the years of government experience to understand the machinations of Federal science policy. Moreover, they have a paper trail of strong opinions on issues that might make appointment politically tough.

Yet there is one person that scores high on all of these dimensions, plus one other major attribute. And that person is Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project. Not only does Collins have top government experience but he is also a successful popularizer. And perhaps even more importantly, based on his background and writings, he would make a perfect science ambassador to religious America.

Just one problem. Francis Collins may be an evangelical Christian and a good framer of science but does he understand science well enough to be a good science advisor? RPM says "no" and I agree with him [Francis Collins Should not be Pres. Science Advisor].

Not being a scientist, Nisbet thinks it's more important to be a science ambassador to the religious American public than to have the respect of the scientific community. That's "inside the beltway" thinking. Collins does not have strong support from fellow scientists because of his flawed views about biology, as RPM points out, and because of his silly attempt to make science compatible with his evangelical Christianity [Theistic Evolution According to Francis Collins] [A Deluded Scientist].

The last thing we want is a science advisor who doesn't speak for scientists.

---

[Photo Credit: Francis Collins discusses “The Language of God”]

Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize for Framing

 
I'm a fan of Al Gore and I would have voted for him if I'd have been an American citizen in 2000. I'd vote for him today if I could. I think he's done a fabulous job of bringing the issue of global warming to the attention of the public. (I also like his latest book The Assault on Reason).

Gore's advantage is that he is not a scientist. That means that he can spin the global warming debate in a way that advances his cause. There is much that is true in An Inconvenient Truth and that's why I support him, but in order to frame the presentation in a way that resonates with the general public he has to drop some of the nuances and present the science in a way that makes it sound far more solid than it actually is.

This is why Gore will not be receiving a Nobel Prize in Science. There are very few scientists who would be comfortable making the same presentation that Gore makes in his public talks. Most scientists know that some of the "facts" are only half-truths and some of them are still disputed within the scientific community. They believe that scientific integrity requires them to be less dogmatic and more circumspect when they talk about science.

Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet would like all scientists to adopt the Al Gore method of presenting science in situations where they advocate changes in public policy. It ain't gonna fly for the reason that I just mentioned. What's so astonishing is that Nisbet and Mooney just don't seem to get it. They don't understand why scientists are leery about framing. It's because we can't do what Gore does without feeling a little guilty over being less than honest about the science.

This does not mean that we don't like Al Gore and other politicians who have learned to appreciate science and base their policy on good scientific foundations. It simply means that pushing science and pushing policy are two different things and the tactics used in the political arena do not belong in science. Some scientists may be able to jump back and forth from one arena to the other but its' going to be very difficult to maintain a scientific reputation under such circumstances. What Nisbet and Mooney are suggesting requires that scientists abandon true science in favor of political science.

I suspect they have a hard time seeing the problem because they're not scientists.

---

I Wish I Could Be There to See the Flaming Framing

 
SPECIAL EVENT:
Speaking Science 2.0: New Directions in Science Communications
Friday, September 28, 2007
7:30 p.m.
Bell Museum Auditorium
$5 Suggested Donation

Seed magazine writers and influential science bloggers gather to discuss new directions in science communication. This lively panel discussion will cover a range of topics, including science and culture, public engagement with science, the role of scientists in the public discussion of science, and communication via the Internet, film, museums and other media. Author and journalist Chris Mooney, American University communications professor Matthew Nisbet, and University of Minnesota anthropologist Greg Laden will join moderator Jessica Marshall, a U of M science journalism professor. A reception in Dinkytown will follow the event. Co-sponsored by the Bell Museum of Natural History; Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs; The Humphrey Institute's Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Minnesota Journalism Center.

Will PZ Myers be there?

Genomics Is Dead! Long Live Systems Biology!

 
When you're an old fuddy-duddy like me you've lived through several revolutions in biology. I still remember when recombinant DNA technology was going to change the world. Then it was developmental biology and evo-devo. Along the way were told with a straight face that sequencing the human genome would cure cancer and everything else.

After a while it all got very boring. We put up with the hype on the grounds that it was good spin framing for the general public. If it brought in lots of money then what's the harm? Well it turns out there was some harm done. We scientists are losing our credibility.

I've gone way beyond being bored by this kind of nonsense. Now I'm angry—especially when it seems that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to misrepresent it. Here's the opening paragraph of a press release on Systems Biology [Systems Biology poised to revolutionize the understanding of cell function and disease]. It summarizes the contents of a report to the European Science Foundation.

Systems Biology is transforming the way scientists think about biology and disease. This novel approach to research could prompt a shake up in medical science and it might ultimately allow clinicians to predict and treat complex diseases such as diabetes, heart failure, cancer, and metabolic syndrome for which there are currently no cures.

I wonder if they just reuse the reports from years past substituting "systems biology" for "genomics," or whatever the last cure for cancer was supposed to be? This kind of stupid motherhood hyperbole would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that these people are deadly serious. That makes it pathetic.

Look what one of authors of the report has to say ...

Until recently, researchers tended to focus on identifying individual genes and proteins and pinpointing their role in the cell or the human body. But molecules almost never act alone. According to Lilia Alberghina from the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy: “There is a growing awareness in medical science that biological entities are ‘systems’ – collections of interacting parts."

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "recently." If it's 40 years then maybe the statement might make some sense but even then it's a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Of course we isolated genes and proteins one-at-a-time but the goal was always to put them back together to make molecular machines. Does Lilia Alberghina really think that older scientists were completely unaware of the fact that biological entities are "systems"? I wonder if Alberghina is aware of metabolic pathways that were worked out half a century ago, or ribosomes, or DNA replication complexes, or muscle, or the complement system, or Drosophila embryogenesis, or any number of other systems that haven't just sprung into existence in the last few years.

Most scientist are already tired of these fads masquerading as revolution. I wonder how long it will be before the public and the politicians catch on?

Peter Lawrence on What's Wrong with Science

 
Peter Lawrence is a Professor at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK. He has worked on various aspects of fruit fly development for almost 40 years. Readers may know him as one of the authors of Wolpert's Principles of Development or as the author of The Making of a Fly.

Peter is a very smart guy. He thinks a lot about the "big picture" and not just the minutiae of day-to-day work in a competitive environment. That's why his article in this month's issue of Current Biology is worth reading. Lawrence writes about what's wrong with modern science [The Mismeasure of Science].

For most scientists, there won't be any revelations in the article but it's put together well and covers all the bases. The main point is that today's scientists have to worry far too much about "productivity" in order to get funded. The system is geared towards artificial measurements of research success that may, or may not, reward creativity and innovation.

Modern science, particularly biomedicine, is being damaged by attempts to measure the quantity and quality of research. Scientists are ranked according to these measures, a ranking that impacts on funding of grants, competition for posts and promotion. The measures seemed, at first rather harmless, but, like cuckoos in a nest, they have grown into monsters that threaten science itself. Already, they have produced an “audit society” [2] in which scientists aim, and indeed are forced, to put meeting the measures above trying to understand nature and disease.

The journals are evaluated according to impact factors, and scientists and departments assessed according to the impact factors of the journals they publish in. Consequently, over the last twenty years a scientist's primary aim has been downgraded from doing science to producing papers and contriving to get them into the “best” journals they can [3]. Now there is a new trend: the idea is to rank scientists by the numbers of citations their papers receive. Consequently, I predict that citation-fishing and citation-bartering will become major pursuits.

You need to read the full article to get all the details.

So, what can we do about it? It's an old complaint, one that's been openly discussed even since I first met Peter Lawrence back in the mid-1970's. If a bunch of (relatively) smart scientists can't figure out how to fix the problem then maybe it's unfixable.

Here's where I think Lawrence drops the ball. He proposes the same tired old "remedies" that we've never adopted in the past in spite of the fact that we all pay lip service to their benefits. He wants us all to pay attention to "quality" and "originality" over quantity. He wants us to be more careful about putting authors names on a paper. He wants a code of ethics for scientists. He wants to reform the peer review process in the leading journals. None of this is going to happen as long as money is tight and the granting agencies have to come up with defensible policies for turning down 75% of grant applications.

The short term solution is to put more money into the grant system and to stop hiring more scientists. The long term solution is to look for better ways of funding. I like the idea of giving large block grants to departments and letting the researchers divide it up as they see fit. This would have worked well in any department I've been in but I hear horror stories about other departments.

---

[Photo Credit: The photograph of Peter Lawrence is from his website at the University of Cambridge (Peter A. Lawrence]

Lawrence, P.A. (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 17:R583-R585.

Does Politics Influence When Scientific Papers Are Published?

 
I'm told that the American House of Representatives is considering a bill that will allow embryonic stem cell research. Matt Nisbet thinks that the recent publication of three papers on stem cell research [Reprogramming Somatic Cells] may have been timed to correspond with this debate in the US Congress [Understanding the political timing of stem cell studies]. Nisbet quotes from an article by Rick Weiss in the Washington Post [Darn Cells. Dividing Yet Again!]. Here's what Weiss says,

Thursday, June 7. After months of intense lobbying by scientists and patient advocacy groups, the House is ready to vote on legislation that would loosen President Bush's restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research. But that very morning, the lead story in every major newspaper is about research just published in a British journal that shows stem cells can be made from ordinary skin cells.

The work was in mice, but the take-home message that suffuses Capitol Hill is that there is no need to experiment on embryos after all.

If that doesn't sound suspicious, consider this:

Monday, Jan. 8. After months of intense lobbying by scientists and patient advocacy groups, Congress is ready to vote on legislation that would loosen Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. But that very morning, newspapers are touting new research just published in a British journal suggesting that stem cells can be made from easily obtained placenta cells. No need for embryos after all!

Is there a plot afoot?

Lots of lobbyists, members of Congress and even a few scientists are starting to think so.

"It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, all of a sudden there is a major scientific discovery that basically says, 'You don't have to do stem cell research,' " Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) sputtered on the House floor on Thursday. "I find it very interesting that every time we bring this bill up there is a new scientific breakthrough," echoed Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), lead sponsor of the embryo access bill. Her emphasis on the word "interesting" clearly implies something more than mere interest.

"Convenient timing for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research, isn't it?" added University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan in an online column. (The bill passed easily, but not with a margin large enough to override Bush's promised veto.)

Hmmm ... let's see if we can figure out what's going on here. Apparently there's some vast conspiracy afoot to keep the American ban on embryonic stem cell research in place. The idea is that scientists and the editors of Nature (for example) want to publish key papers about alternatives to embryonic stem cell research just when American politicians are about to vote on a bill to lift the ban.

The conspiracy makes several key assumptions. It assumes that the editors of the British journal Nature knew about the American bill back on May 22nd when they accepted the two papers. That's when the decision to publish on line for June 6th was taken (the two week delay between acceptance and online publication is typical). It assumes, therefore, that the acceptance date was juggled to meet the target date of June 6th—assuming that the editors even knew, or cared, about what was going on in Washington D.C. (USA). Presumably the acceptance date was delayed somewhat in order to fix the timing. One assumes that the group in Japan who published one of the papers had no problem with this delay and nor did the scientists in Boston. The papers were extremely important in a competitive field but, hey, anything can wait for American politics, right?

Harvard risk expert David Roepik and Temple mathematician John Allan Paulos are skeptical about the conspiracy theory with good reason. The whole idea is ludicrous but that doesn't stop Matt Nisbet from suggesting that it's true. Here's what Nisbet says,

Still, something more than just coincidence is likely to be going on here. Roepik and Paulos' arguments innocently assume that publication timing at science journals is random, without systematic bias. But journal editors, just like news organization editors and journalists, are subject to various biases, many of them stemming from the fact that they work within a profit-driven organization that has to keep up a subscriber base and play to their audience.

Peer-review is just one of the many filtering devices that scientific research goes through. Certainly many papers make it through peer-review based on technical grounds, but then editors at the elite journals, faced with limited space and the need to create drama and interest among subscribers and news organizations, apply more subjective criteria based on what they believe to be the "scientific newsworthiness" of the research. In other words, how much interest among the scientific community will these papers generate AND how much news attention?

Still, Nisbet isn't quite as paranoid and confused about the process as Rick Wiess. In the Washington Post article he says,

Then there is the question of motive. The Brits are competing against Americans in the stem cell field and are legally allowed to conduct studies on embryos. Might they be aiming to dominate the field by helping the conservative and religious forces that have so far restricted U.S. scientists' access to embryos?

Or might the journals be trying, as one stem cell expert opined on the condition of anonymity, to leverage their visibility by publishing stem cell articles just as Congress is voting on the topic?

Damn Brits. :-)

In fairness, Weiss includes a disclaimer from the editors of Nature,

"Nature has no hidden agenda in publishing these papers," said the journal's senior press officer, Ruth Francis, in an e-mail. The real goal was to get the papers out before a big stem cell conference in Australia next week, she said.

More significantly, Weiss includes a comment from someone who seems to have hit the nail on the head,

To Ropeik, the Harvard risk expert, the fact that people are imputing anything more than sheer coincidence is "just more proof that inside the Beltway the thinking is so myopic. They see the whole world through their own lens, and are blinded" to common sense.

That sounds about right to me. If you live in Washington you start to think that the whole world revolves around the White House and Congress. It's easy to believe that everything has to be spun framed in order to influence American politicians—even the timing of publication of scientific papers by a prominent British journal.

Jim Watson Comments on GM Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology

 
Watch this clip of Jim Watson commenting on recombinant DNA technology and its uses in making genetically modified plants [Dr. James Watso]. The video is produced by Monsanto so those of you with a bias can easily dismiss it without a second thought.

The rest of you should pause to think about what Watson is saying. He's definitely outspoken but is he right? He says ...

Recombinant DNA is the safest technology I’ve ever heard.

Read Nobel Laureate: Paul Berg for information about Asilomar and the recombinant DNA controversy of the 1970's. Read the comments to that article for other points of view and references to Watson. Hsien Hsien Lei has an opinion and so does Jeremy.

Canadian Scientists Are Refusing to Sit on Grants Panels

 
The results of the September 2006 CIHR grants competition are now available. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is the main funding body for biological research in Canada. The funding crisis will have a devastating effect on the careers of many of my colleagues.

A total of 310 grant renewals were submitted and 91 were funded. This represents a renewal rate of 29%. Keep in mind that most of these applications were submitted by well-established scientists with a long history of funding and publications. At this rate of renewal, 71% of functioning labs might have to shut down unless they're successful in the next competition.

When your grant is not renewed, you revert to the "new" category of applications. In the latest competition, 240 "new" applications were funded out of 1707 submissions. This is a 14% success rate. Remember, most of these "new" applications are from scientists who are in the prime of their career but who failed in their renewal last year.

Of those grants that were funded, 26.1% of the funding awarded by the peer review committees was clawed back in order to spread the money a bit further. What this means is that some of the "renewals" were funded at lower levels than the current grants. Post-docs and research assistants will be let go even when a grant is renewed.

The average grant was $109,000 and no equipment was funded. This is not enough money to run an effective biochemistry lab.

Pierre Chartrand is the Vice President, Research Portfolio, at CIHR. He posted a wimpy message on the CIHR website [A Word on the September 2006 Operating Grants Competition]. Here's part of what he had to say.

Competition for available funding has grown increasingly intense. This trend is unlikely to change as Canada continues to expand its infrastructure for health research. For this reason, within the Research Portfolio of CIHR, we cannot afford to be consumed by disappointment. Canada owes its reputation for research excellence to an open, accountable and very rigorous peer review system for funding applications. We must re-double our efforts to ensure that the peer review processes used to guide CIHR's funding decisions are the very best that they can be. In light of the recent competition results, we have heard from a small number of active peer reviewers and others who are frustrated to the point of no longer wishing to participate in the peer review process. Such frustration, no matter how limited, leaves me gravely concerned because CIHR is at a point in time where the participation of the absolute best in its peer review processes is critical.

Let me tell you, Pierre, you damn well better be "gravely concerned." Some of my friends are sick and tired of sitting on committees where they have to reject excellent grants from their colleagues knowing that this will be a knockout blow to their future careers as scientists. Is it any wonder that they don't want to act as executioners?

Now you tell us that things aren't likely to change but you still expect Canadian scientists to volunteer to do the dirty work. Not gonna happen. About 70% of those volunteers whose grants were up for renewal have just stopped being "peers." Don't expect them to be happy. As for the rest, I urge them to boycott the process until there's a change in the CIHR leadership that got us into this mess.

A Code of Ethics for Scientists

There's an article on today's ScienceDaily website about a code of ethics for scientists [Scientists Should Adopt Codes Of Ethics, Scientist-bioethicist Says]. The ScienceDaily article is based on a press release from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. The press release highlights a paper by Nancy L. Jones. Jones has some experience in "ethics" according to the press release.

Jones, an adjunct associate professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, is an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) science and technology policy fellow at the National Institutes of Health. She is a fellow at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and is a recent member of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

With credentials like that, you'd think she would know something about science and ethics.

Jones appears to be concerned about issues such as cloning, stem cells, and gene transfer. It's not clear to me that there are real ethical issues associated with those topics but one thing is very clear—she's focusing on the uses of science (technology) and not on pure science.

Jones wants all scientists to sign a code of ethics to regulate and control their behavior. What kind of a code is she talking about? The only example in the press release is,

“A code of ethics should provide guidance for which knowledge should be sought, define the ethical means of acquiring knowledge, emphasize thoughtful examination of potential consequences, both good and bad, and help society prescribe responsible use of the knowledge,” writes Jones.

Her prototype code compares the norms of life sciences to the Hippocratic tradition. In part, it reads, “In granting the privilege of freedom of inquiry, society implicitly assumes that scientists act with integrity on behalf of the interests of all people. Scientists and the scientific community should accept the responsibility for the consequences of their work by guiding society in the developing of safeguards necessary to judiciously anticipate and minimize harm.”

I have a problem with this. Let's unpack the mix and address each of the four parts separately.

1. Provide guidance for which knowledge should be sought.

What does this mean? What kind of "guidance" would be part of a universal code of scientific ethics? Would I have to limit my search for knowledge to that which is acceptable to a researcher at a Baptist Medical School? I'm never going to sign a "code of ethics" that restricts my ability to pursue knowledge.

2. Define the ethical means of acquiring knowledge.

This sounds okay, although I wonder how it's going to work in practice. I doubt that anyone has a scientific ethical problem with most of the work done by astronomers, physicists, geologists, chemists, and botanists. Am I correct in assuming that Jones is worried about medical researchers and is transferring her specific concerns to all scientists? Is she talking about animal research or clinical trials? Would those be the only things that require defining or is there an ethical way of using a telescope?

3. Emphasize thoughtful examination of potential consequences, both good and bad.

This is the tough one. I know it seems reasonable for scientists to consider the consequences of their quest for knowledge but, in practice, it's not that easy. In my most pessimistic moods I can imagine all kinds of evil things that might be done with the knowledge that biochemists have gained over the past few decades. What should I do about that? Should we force our colleagues to stop doing research whenever we can imagine a dire consequence? Of course not.

Does that mean we should never consider the consequences; no, it doesn't. But keep in mind that scientists have been badly burned whenever they have publicly stepped into this morass. It was scientists who raised the issue of possible consequences of genetic engineering. Even though the scientists decided that the possible risks were minimal, the lawyers soon took over and we were stuck with silly laws that impeded research for a decade. Many of us remember that fiasco.

The responsibility for the misuse of scientific knowledge lies with those who misuse it and not with those who discovered the knowledge in the first place. You can't inhibit the search for knowledge on the grounds that it might be abused by someone in the future. That's why this part of the code of ethics is naive, irresponsible, and ultimately counter-productive. It attempts to put the blame on science when it's technology that's at fault.

4. Help society prescribe responsible use of the knowledge.

This is a legitimate role for scientists as long as they are explaining science. I don't have a problem with scientists describing stem cell research, for example. They can explain how it's done and explain the probabilities of success and the consequences of failure. They can describe how the new-found knowledge might help patients with various diseases and injuries. In other words, scientists can be a valuable source of knowledge.

But are scientists any better than the average citizen at "prescribing responsible use of knowledge" in the sense that Jones implies? I don't think so. Almost all American scientists would advocate funding stem cell research. Are they being ethical? What about those religious scientists who say that stem cell research is unethical? If both types of scientist signed the same code of ethics then what does it mean to say that scientists should "help society prescribe responsible use of knowledge"? What about those stem cell researchers who choose to stay out of the public limelight and get on with curing Alzheimer's? Are they unethical because they remain silent?

As you can see, science ethics is a complicated problem. Any attempt to regulate scientists based on some individual's definition of ethics is doomed to failure. I can't wait to see what Janet Stemwedel has to say about this.

Flunk the IDiots

Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute reported that University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture. Apparently, the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism.

Salvador Cordova has picked up on this at Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent in an article titled "Darwinian indoctrination required at UCSD? Or will the other side be heard someday?". He notes that 40% of the freshman class reject Darwinism.

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.