Friday, July 24, 2009
How to deal with scientists who cheat
What do you do when a scientists (PI, post-doc, graduate student) is caught falsifying data? Should they be expelled from the community, fired from their job, or given a slap on the wrist and rehabilitated?
This isn't an easy question as Janet Stemwedel demonstrates in Tempering justice with mercy: the question of youthful offenders in the tribe of science. I hate it when she does that. It would be so easy to conclude that cheating scientists should be drummed out of the profession but then along comes Janet to confuse me.
She's right, of course. There ought to be a range of punishments that fit the wide range of crimes and motives.
Cody Cobb's Visit
We had a fun visit with Cody Cobb the other day when he flew up to Toronto for a free lunch [Lunch with a winner].
I mentioned that Cody was a blogger but I didn't link to his blog because I wasn't sure if he wanted to be identified as the author of 90% True. Well, apparently he doesn't care, 'cause he's posted two articles about his visit to Toronto.
In Canadian Lunch he reviews a lot of the things we talked about, including our lunch debates with Alex Palazzo. In Science Blogging he covers the discussion about the value and purpose of science blogging. They're both excellent reads—pay him a visit.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Richard Dawkins Award Goes to Bill Maher
Atheist Alliance International is an organization that gives out The Richard Dawkins Award each year. The criteria, according to Wikipedia are ...The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.This year the award goes to Bill Maher. One assumes that he is the man who best exemplifies the criteria for the award.
Does Bill Maher advocate increased scientific knowledge and does his public posture resemble that of Richard Dawkins?
Not bloody likely. As Orac and others have pointed out, Maher believes in all sorts of kooky ideas including the idea that vaccinations don't work [Bill Maher gets the Richard Dawkins Award? That's like Jenny McCarthy getting an award for public health].
Bill Maher may be a good atheist but he sure ain't a good scientist.
So what does PZ Myers think of this? [Put Maher in the hot seat]
However, let's be clear about the obvious. He is being given this award for making a movie this year that clearly promotes atheism and mocks religion, and that's all that is being endorsed.Nope, sorry PZ but you seem to be wrong about that. Unless, of course, the criteria for the award as described in the Wikipedia article are wrong.
You need to be much more that a good little religion-bashing atheist to meet the criteria and it's as plain as the nose on your face that Bill Maher doesn't qualify.
BTW, like PZ, I was not a big fan of Religulous. Thus, I don't even agree that Bill Maher was in the same league as Richard Dawkins and his Root of all Evil series.
Dawkins, Tyson, Druyan, Stenger
This panel discussion took place
The thing that troubles me most about this discussion is the general agreement that "science" is nothing more than learning about physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology and biology. I think "science" is a way of knowing that includes absolutely everything; english, history, music, sociology and whatever. Real knowledge ("truth") in any of these subjects can only come from applying scientific methodology based on evidence and rationality coupled to a healthy degree of skepticism.
The discussion about whether science should confront religion is particularly interesting. Ann Druyan was the wife of Carl Sagan and she helped produce Cosmos. She claims that science has a wonderful story of its own to tell and there's no need to criticize religion. In fact, it's counter-productive to do so.
Ms. Druyan suggests that Sagan's description of science in Cosmos is the best way to sell science to the general public. She says that the TV series is still being shown frequently on television even though it was made in 1980.
To me that raises an obvious question. Thinking scientifically, I can't help but ask the obvious question. If this was such an effective way to communicate science how come after 29 years it hasn't had much effect on science literacy in the USA? Shouldn't we be basing our claims about science education on evidence and not on wishful thinking?
The Problem with Science Journalism
There are many problems with science journalism these days. One of the most important problems is that their sources (scientists) are highly unreliable as we witnessed in the recent Darwinius Affair.
One of the other problems is that science journalists have been very reluctant to criticize each other and maintain certain minimal standards of reporting. They are much more interested in giving each other awards for good writing than they are in evaluating good science.
Carl Zimmer has become an exception to the rule.1 He has taken on the role of defending his profession against those science journalists who would abuse science for the sake of a high profile publication [George Will’s Crack Fact-Checkers Continue Their Nap]. We need more journalists like Carl Zimmer and we need more scientists who will chastise their less-than-scientific colleagues when they step out of line.
1. Chris Mooney is another.
Shona Holmes and Canadian Health Care
Shona Holmes is a Canadian citizen. She suffered from a number of symptoms including dizziness and loss of vision. Her family doctor in Canada sent her for an MRI and the results suggested a brain tumor. Homes might have to wait months before seeing a neurologist for further tests. (This hasn't been confirmed, to my knowledge.)
Shona Holmes decided to fly to the the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale Arizona. There she was eventually diagnosed as having a Rathke's cleft cyst (RCC) in her brain. This is not a tumor and it is not life-threatening. It does, however, threaten her vision, which was already impaired.
Eventually, after more tests and at least one further visit to Scottsdale, the cyst was removed. It's not clear how long it took from making the first appointment at the clinic to the actual surgery but the article on the Mayo Clinic website suggests it was about a month. Incidentally, this article has been removed from the Mayo Clinic website but it is cached here.
The bottom line is that Holmes suffered from a non-life-threatening cyst that affected her vision and could have eventually led to blindness. She choose not to wait for treatment in Canada but to pay for treatment in Arizona.
Shona Holmes is suing the Government of Ontario in order to force it to revise and/or dismantle public health care. The suit [Lindsay McCreith and Shona Holmes/The Attorney General for the Province of Ontario] is being supported by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a right-wing group that's described here.
To summarize, we have a patient with a non-life-threatening brain cyst who may or may not have had to wait a long time for treatment in Canada but choose to go to an American clinic where she was operated on after about a month. This patient is sufficiently opposed to Canada's health care system that she has collaborated with a right-wing group to sue the Government of Ontario for allegedly violating her rights.
Oh yes, one more little bit of information, this is the same Shona Holmes you see in this video warning Americans about the dangers of universal health care. This Shona Holmes was going to die of a brain tumor if she had stayed in Canada.
It's pretty clear that Holmes is not telling the truth in the TV ad. The only question is whether she "misinformed" the group Patients United Now or whether they pressured her into making untrue statements in the TV add. Canadian Cynic wants to know [Shona Holmes: Useful idiot or puppetmaster?].
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Positive Case for Intelligent Design Creationism?
In biology, when you encounter something that has the superficial appearance of design there are two possible explanations. Either it evolved by entirely natural processes or God did it.
In the Intelligent Design Creationist literature, 99% of the effort is spent on trying to prove that evolution cannot produce the appearance of design.1 They have to focus on the anti-evolution argument because if they admit that evolution can do the job then there's no reason to invoke the supernatural.
The frequent criticism of this negative anti-science rhetoric is an embarrassment to many Intelligent Design Creationists so they often make up stories about the "positive" argument for design.
Sometimes it's fun to watch them twist and turn. Here's Casey Luskin performing: How James Carville’s New Book, 40 More Years Misrepresents Intelligent Design.
1. The remaining 1% is uninterpretable gibberish.
Who goes in the sack?
Dara Ó Briain tells us who he would put in a big sack and what he would do with them ...
[Hat Tip: Pharyngula]
Lunch with a winner
Cody Cobb was the winner of Monday's Molecule #129. He lives in New Jersey where he is about to start graduate school at Rutgers. If you live in New Jersey you look forward to traveling, so Cody decided to fly up to Toronto for the day to collect his lunch. Because this was his first time in Canada, I decided to splurge and take him to a restaurant with white table cloths.
Cody has been blogging for many years—much longer than me. We had a good time talking about blogs and their
Of course no first time visit to Canada would be complete without ...
The New Seven Wonders of Nature
There are 28 finalists in the running for the New 7 Wonders of Nature. You can see the list here.Guess who didn't make the cut? Niagara Falls wasn't even on the list of possible wonders because the Americans in New York State didn't want to spend money to promote the Falls as a legitmate contender. (I assume the Canadians didn't want to foot the entire bill themselves.)
If you're Canadian you can vote for the Bay of Fundy and if you're American you can vote for the Grand Canyon. Australians, Germans, Irish, South Africans and Italians can all vote for a 7th wonder form their own country. Even the Swiss have an entry.
If you're from the United Kingdom, you are out of luck. Apparently there's nothing wonderful in the UK.
[Photo Credit: The Eire Hiker]
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Direction and Purpose in Evolution
If you put two people together who believe that natural selection is the only important mechanism of evolution and that humans are the only, and best, end product of evolution, then this is what you get.
Watch Robert Wright and Daniel Dennet discuss direction and purpose in evolution.
Now imagine what the discussion would look like if they really understood the important role of chance and accident in evolution and, instead of humans, they used lobsters, ginkgo trees, shiitake mushrooms, rotifers, and cyanobacteria as examples of modern evolved species with three billion years worth of ancestors.
Even worse, think about the octopus. Is there any sane person who would point to the existence of those eight-legged slimeballs as evidence that evolution must have a direction and a purpose?
[Hat Tip: Robert Wright]
Monday's Molecule #130: Winner?
The "molecule" is Rous Sarcoma Virus or RSV. It's a retrovirus, specifically an alpharetrovirus. Other types of retrovirus include Lentivirus (e.g. HIV).
Unless you're an expert, you really can't tell from the diagram whether this is an alpharetrovirus or some other type of retrovirus. That's why I provided some clues linking this virus to last week's molecule and Nobel Laureates.
The Nobel Laureate is Peyton Rous.
Bill Chaney was the only person who got the right answer and he isn't eligible. There is no winner this week. Most of you guessed that it was HIV. One person—who shall not be named—guessed RSV and HIV with a total of five possible Nobel Laureates. That's only worth part marks. I'm expecting this person to be a winner real soon!
I thought last week's molecule would be a challenge but Sandwalk readers came up with the correct answer even in the middle of summer in the Northern hemisphere. Considering how well you did last week, following up with this week's "molecule" should be a gift.Identify the thing shown here and relate it to a Nobel Laureate.
The first person to identify the "molecule" and the Nobel Laureate(s), wins a free lunch. Previous winners are ineligible for six weeks from the time they first won the prize.
There are six ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Bill Chaney of the University of Nebraska, Ian Clarke of New England Biolabs Canada in Pickering ON, Canada. Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Dara Gilbert of the University of Waterloo, Anne Johnson of Ryerson University, and Cody Cobb, soon to be a graduate student at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
I have an extra free lunch for a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional prize to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk (at) bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule(s) and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Prizes so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings by clicking on the link in the theme box.
Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.
The image is from Butan et al. (2008) [doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.12.003]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)