Get a Job in Newfoundland

 

Memorial University of Newfoundland
Tenure-track Positions in Gene Expression and Metabolic Biochemistry
The Department of Biochemistry at Memorial University invites applications for two tenure-track positions at the level of Assistant Professor, one in each of the targeted areas listed below. Applicants should have a PhD or equivalent degree with a minimum of two years post-doctoral research experience and should possess a strong research record with significant future promise. The successful applicants will be expected to develop externally funded research programmes with relevance to one of the research foci of the department: 1) Development and health, and 2) Membranes and molecular interactions. They will also be expected to show a commitment to effective teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The new faculty members will be encouraged to collaborate with the faculty in the department and elsewhere in the university.

1) Gene Expression (ref # VPA-BIOC-2008-001). The successful applicant for this position will be expected to develop a research programme focused on some area of gene regulation such as, but not limited to, transcriptional regulation by DNA-protein interactions, chromatin structure/remodeling, or gene expression profiling.

2) Metabolic Biochemistry (ref # VPA-BIOC-2008-002). The successful applicant will be expected to develop a research programme focused on some area of metabolic biochemistry such as, but not limited to, metabolomics, gene-nutrient interactions, or metabolic regulation including signaling pathways.

Applicants should submit a curriculum vitae, a summary of past research, a statement of proposed research and reprints of 3 publications. The application must be accompanied by the names, affiliations and contact information of three referees.

Memorial University is the largest university in Atlantic Canada offering diverse undergraduate, graduate and medical school programmes to almost 18,000 students. As the Province’s only university, Memorial plays an integral role in the educational and cultural life of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Biochemistry Department consists of 18 faculty with expertise in a wide range of biochemical areas. For information about the Department of Biochemistry please see the departmental webpage. St. John’s is a safe, friendly city with great historic charm, a vibrant cultural life, affordable housing and easy access to a wide range of outdoor activities. For more information about St. John’s please see the municipal website.

Memorial University is committed to employment equity and encourages applications from qualified women and men, visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadian Citizens and Permanent Residents will be given priority. Partners of candidates for positions are invited to include their resumes for possible matching with other job opportunities.

Applications should be received by the Department of Biochemistry by May 15, 2009.

Applications should be addressed to: Dr. Martin Mulligan, Head, Department of Biochemistry, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada, A1B 3X9. Applications may also be submitted electronically to biochead@mun.ca or by fax: (709) 737-2422. Please quote the appropriate job reference number on all correspondence.

---

Happy Vernal Equinox!

 
Today at 11:44 UT (= 7:44 AM Eastern Time) the sun appeared to cross the celestial equator in its northward movement. (See Movement of Our Star for the real explanation.)

Most people in the Northern Hemisphere think of this as the first day of Spring. I prefer to think of it as the end of Winter. Springlike days are still a few weeks off in Toronto.

Here's a brief explanation from Wikipedia.

An equinox in astronomy is the moment in time (not a whole day) when the centre of the Sun can be observed to be directly above the Earth's equator, occurring around March 20 and September 23 each year.

More technically, at an equinox, the Sun is at one of two opposite points on the celestial sphere where the celestial equator (i.e., declination 0) and ecliptic intersect. These points of intersection are called equinoctial points—the vernal point and the autumnal point. By extension, the term equinox may be used to denote an equinoctial point.

---

[Photo Credit: The photograph shows the position of the sun at various times throughout the year at 12h (UT) over the Temple of Aphaia (490-480 BC), Athens (Anthony AYIOMAMITIS). The image is called the solar analemma. See here for an explanation. The celestial equator is perpendicular to the long axis of the image and half way between the top and bottom. The crossover point of the figure eight depends on your distance from the equator. I'd love to see one taken on the equator or in the southern hemisphere.]

[Image Credit: eSky]

"Science is my job - faith is my rock"

 
"Science is my job - faith is my rock" is the title of an article in today's Globe and Mail. Zosia Bielski is a journalist who writes on a wide range of topics with an emphasis on social issues. She was prompted to write about the conflict between science and religion because of the controversy surrounding Canada's Science Minister, Gary Goodyear.

As usual, there's no mention of the fact that most active scientists are non-religious. The proportion of atheist scientists is much higher than the proportion of atheists in the general public. Apparently this fact has little to do with a conflict between science and religion.

Zosia Bielski takes the standard approach to this issue. She interviews three religious scientists and discovers that they can reconcile their faith and science. What a surprise!

She does not interview anyone who thinks there's a serious conflict between science and religion. If she had written an article about the lack of faith among scientists and had only interviewed atheist scientists, she would have been accused (rightly) of biased journalism. The lack of balance would have been recognized by any competent editor and she would have been told to go out and get statements from religious scientists. It seems like "balance" only works one way.

What's interesting about the article is that she interview Rev. Ambury Stuart, a climatologist who is also a United Church minister. What Stuart has to say about the conflict between science and religion is very interesting.

"I struggled with this all my life. I grew up in the United Church, I always attended. You say, 'Well, can you believe in God if you believe in Newton's laws?' And the short answer is yes, you can, but it takes a while," Mr. Stuart said.

"You have to think through a lot of stuff. It's not simplistic. You try and divide your brain into two bits: One bit you'll use on Sunday and the rest of it you'll use the rest of the week, and it doesn't work. It doesn't have to."

Evolutionary evangelist Michael Dowd's book "Thank God For Evolution" helped Mr. Stuart smooth out his own message at Glebe Road United Church in Toronto. He weaves his scientific passions into his sermons.

"You can look at scripture and say this means a whole lot more than we ever thought it meant before, because it applies to everything," Mr. Stuart said. "The idea that we are related, that we are kin with the rest of life, is essential for Christianity to do anything constructive in the ecological crisis."

This is about as honest as you get. Stuart is telling us that the conflict between religion and science is real and challenging. You have to work really hard at reconciling science and religion. Many religious beliefs don't survive the challenge.

That's an important lesson for people like Gary Goodyear. Any religion that denies evolution is incompatible with science. You have to choose one or the other. You can't be a Young Earth Creationist without being anti-science. If that kind of faith is your "rock" then science can't be your job.

---

Nobel Laureate: Willard Libby

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1960.

"for his method to use carbon-14 for age determination in archaeology, geology, geophysics, and other branches of science"


Willard Frank Libby (1908 - 1980) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for using ¹⁴C decay to date organic material. Libby set out to study cosmic rays. He, and others, determined that one of the effects of cosmic ray is to produce carbon-14 atoms from nitrogen-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere.

He determined that the rate of production of carbon-14 and its rate of disintegration (half-life ~5600 years¹) has reached an equilibrium. No matter where you find carbon, in the ocean, the atmosphere, or the biosphere, its radioactivity corresponds to about 14 disintegrations per minute per gram.

Living things incorporate this equilibrium mixture of ¹⁴C and ¹²C. Thus, we, like all other living things, are radioactive and this level of radioactivity can be measured using techniques that Willard Libby developed. When living things die, they stop incorporating carbon and the existing ¹⁴C continues to decay. As time goes on, the level of radioactivity declines with a half-life of ~5600 years. The age of organic material can be determined directly by measuring the remaining radioactivity of extracted carbon.

That's the basis of radiocarbon dating. Libby confirmed the feasibility of the technique by dating Egyptian artifacts, tree rings of known age, and the dead sea scrolls (labeled "Bible" in the figure). The results confirmed that radiocarbon dating works.


The results were published in the late 1940's. Since then, the technology has improved considerably. Today, scientists measure ¹⁴C directly using mass spectrometry so they don't have to wait for it to decay. Detailed calibration curves have been worked out to take account of the fact that cosmic ray intensity has varied somewhat over the past few thousand years.

With current technology, reliable dates back as far as 60,000 years can be obtained. This is about the limit of radiocarbon dating because the half-life of Carbon-14 is so short compared to more long-lived isotopes.

The presentation speech highlights the importance of radiocarbon dating in a number of disciplines.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Libby's dating method soon attracted attention from the scientific world, and it was not long before carbon-14 laboratories were set up in many countries. Today, some forty institutions carry on investigations in this field, nearly half of them in America. Also here, in Sweden, we have such institutions, and their investigations have given results of great value. All age determinations - nowadays several thousand every year - are published in a general review, and thus made rapidly available throughout the world. The literature in this field has grown from year to year, and at present covers an impressive area.

One of the scientists who suggested Libby as a candidate for the Nobel Prize has characterized his work in the following way: "Seldom has a single discovery in chemistry had such an impact on the thinking in so many fields of human endeavour. Seldom has a single discovery generated such wide public interest".

Professor Libby. The idea you had 13 years ago of trying to determine the age of biological materials by measuring their carbon-14 activity was a brilliant impulse. Thanks to your great experimental skill, acquired during many years devoted to the study of weakly radioactive substances, you have succeeded in developing a method that is indispensible for research work in many fields and in many institutes throughout the world. Archaeologists, geologists, geophysicists, and other scientists are greatly indebted to you for the valuable support you have given them in their work. The Swedish Academy of Sciences desires to join those who offer you grateful thanks for what you have done for the benefit of so many sciences, and has decided to award you this year's Nobel Prize for Chemistry. May I congratulate you on behalf of the Academy, and ask you to receive the prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.

---

1. The modern value is 5730±40 years.

[Photo Credit: University of California History Digital Archives, Copyright © 2006 The Regents of the University of California.]

The images of the Nobel Prize medals are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation (© The Nobel Foundation). They are used here, with permission, for educational purposes only.

Science Journalism in Decline

 
There's an editorial in Nature this week on science journalism [Filling the Void]. It's not very interesting.

There's an article by Geoff Brumfiel that's much more interesting [Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?]. Since I'm mentioned in that article, and since I can't comment on their site, I thought I'd make a few comments here.

First, I posted a comment on Chris Mooney's blog where I said, "Most of what passes for science journalism is so bad we will be better of without it." What I meant to say was, "Most of what passes for science journalism is so bad we will be better off without it". I just want there to be a correct version that everyone can quote.

The article correctly points to a trend ...

Traditional journalists are increasingly looking to such sites to find story ideas (see 'Rise of the blogs'). At the same time, they rely heavily on the public-relations departments of scientific organizations. As newspapers employ fewer people with science-writing backgrounds, these press offices are employing more. Whether directly or indirectly, scientists and the institutions at which they work are having more influence than ever over what the public reads about their work.

Over the past decade it has been the "professional" science journalists themselves who were the gullible victims of scientific hype and PR. The scientific accuracy of press releases leaves a great deal to be desired. They are, after all, intended to promote the researcher and the institution. They are heavily biased.

It is not a good thing that individual scientists and their institutions are managing the science news. It's a disaster.

The amount of material being made available to the public by scientists and their institutions means that "from the pure standpoint of communicating science to the general public, we're in a kind of golden age", says Robert Lee Hotz, a science journalist for The Wall Street Journal. But that pure standpoint is not, or should not be, all that there is to media coverage of science. Hotz doubts that blogs can fulfil the additional roles of watchdog and critic that the traditional media at their best aim to fulfil. That sort of work seems to be on its way out. "Independent science coverage is not just endangered, it's dying," he says.

I hear this a lot. Science journalists seem to think that they have served as watchdogs and science critics by tempering the hype and propaganda spewed out by institutional PR departments.

I wish it were true. If science journalists really did their job of separating the wheat from the chaff then I would be their biggest cheerleader. Instead, for the most part they have been completely seduced by the lure of scientific breakthroughs and revolutions promoted by self-serving scientists and their institutions. There are notable exceptions, but the majority of science journalists have failed at the one job they are supposed to do better than non-science journalists.

That's why we would be better off without them.

Coincidentally, Ryan Gregory has just posted an article about Scitable, "A Collaborative Learning Space for Science" hosted by Nature magazine. I'm pretty sure that Nature is proud of this site. They think the articles are good examples of science writing.

Ryan highlights an article by Leslie Pray, a free-lance science writer. The title is: Transposons, or Jumping Genes: Not Junk DNA?. Read what Ryan Gregory has to say at Scitable Again. He thinks the article is "total nonsense." I agree with him.

If this is an indication of the ability of science journalists to cut to the chase and give us the straight dope, then it's no wonder that scientists are skeptical.

---

Regulatin' Genes

 
Some of us old fuddy-duddies have been learning about the regulation of transcription for over forty years. When you've been teaching about regulatory proteins, like HOX proteins, for twenty-five years, the novelty sort of wears off.

It's fun to see the enthusiasm of students who have just recently been "turned on" by gene regulation, especially when one of them is also a Toronto Blue Jays fan! Strange that the university looks a lot more like Stanford than the University of Toronto [HumBio instructor, students rap about science on YouTube].

---

Time to Change the Channel

 
My local Liberal candidate is Omar Alghabra, who lost the last election to one of Harper's Conservatives. Omar sent me a link to this video. He though I might get a kick out of it.

I did.

---

Don't Leave Canada Behind

 
This is a letter sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Leader of the Opposition Michael Ignatieff. It is signed by hundreds of Canadian scientists. I don't expect it to have any effect on Harper but it will be interesting to see if the Liberal Party decides to support science.

March 16, 2009

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada The Right Honourable Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Opposition Ottawa

Subject: Don't leave Canada behind

Dear Prime Minister, Dear Leader of the Opposition

U.S. President Barack Obama is taking advantage of the current financial crisis to push his country forward in new directions by greatly boosting funding to scientific research and education as a means to jump start innovation in a new economy. The scope of his vision is stunning, including an increase of more than $15 billion in scientific research, and a promise to double the funding for education in the next 10 years. For more details, see http://www.sciencedebate2008.com.

Our government has also tried to stimulate the research / university sector in Canada, wishing to take important initiatives. At the heart of the plan is a $2 billion dollars infrastructure fund for shovel-ready renovation projects in post-secondary institutions, a fund that was actively solicited by university presidents. There is also an additional $750 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and $87.5 million over three years for doctoral scholarships. While these funding announcements are surely welcome, we would like to share our concerns as to the potential effect of some of these decisions, in particular in view of the bold and visionary course taken by the Obama administration south of the border.

1. When the U.S. government is proposing to boost the funding of the National Science Foundation (NSF) by 40% ($3 billion on top of its current $6.9 billion), we see Canada’s "stimulus budget" cutting NSERC's by 5%. When the U.S. administration is proposing to boost the funding of the National Institute of Health (NIH) by 30% ($8.5 billion in addition to its current $29 billion), our "stimulus budget" is cutting CIHR's by 5%, while essentially ignoring the needs of Genome Canada. When US researchers are being actively approached for ideas to use the stimulus money to think big and to hire and retain their researchers, their Canadian counterparts are now scrambling to identify budget cuts for their Labs, while worrying about the future of their graduating students. Recent Tri-council grants competitions, which were post stimulus budget, are already pointing towards sharply lower success rates (by more than 20% in some disciplines), lower start-up grants for young researchers, and negligible research funding for smaller institutions and provinces. These cuts are huge steps backward for Canadian Science and we ask the government to immediately develop a multi-year plan to significantly increase this country’s R&D investment through our granting councils.

2. The infrastructure support for Canada's post-secondary institutions is surely beneficial for their depleted budgets for deferred maintenance. However, the federal support requires 50% in matching funds which few institutions currently have. The net effect of this decision will be to dictate priorities for universities and provincial governments too eager to get the federal funds, and as such to divert further funds from teaching, training and research. We therefore ask government to drop the requirement of matching funds.

3. The CFI has provided a tremendous boost to certain aspects of Canada's research infrastructure over the last 10 years. However, the constraints of the program have left many important research disciplines out of its potential beneficial impact. Moreover, similar matching rules continue to apply to CFI projects, and as a consequence of the present lack of available support from the private sector and from provincial governments, even some of the already approved projects are being postponed and cancelled. At this point in time, we believe that removing the matching requirements for current and future CFI projects would be extremely beneficial for Canada and its research infrastructure.

4. The funding of an additional 500 doctoral scholarships is great news for a country that is committed to have ``the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world". However, it seems this funding is coming at the expense of the highly qualified personnel (HQP’s) that could have been recruited more efficiently by our senior researchers through their Tri-Council grants. We believe that a more efficient strategy for ensuring a successful HQP policy is to give our leading researchers the flexibility to manage the selection, recruitment, and support of their own graduate students through their peer-reviewed research grants, and via well-established leveraging procedures with the universities and the private sector. We also regret that the $17.5-million assigned to SSHRC for graduate scholarships have been earmarked towards students in business and finance. As Alain Dubuc writes in La Presse: ``En boudant certains domaines de recherche, nos universités vont perdre leur pouvoir d'attraction. Et bien des jeunes talentueux iront ailleurs.
(See http://www.cyberpresse.ca/)

5. President Obama is proposing to double federal funding for education over the next 10 years, and pledging to “restore science to its rightful place” with billions in new investments. To advise his government, he has appointed leading scientists to his cabinet and as his advisors (including a Nobel laureate as energy Secretary). The Obama administration has also involved the directors of NIH and NSF in federal budget discussions about the future of research. We need a similar approach in Canada, where top research scientists and humanists can help shape directions in Ottawa for research funding.

A new economy is coming out of this crisis and research and development will be the lifeblood to that new economy. We call upon you not to let Canada be left behind.

Sincerely,

Margaret Ann Armour, Chemistry, Order of Canada (University of Alberta) Tom Archibald, Chair of Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Alejandro Adem, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Tom Allison (University of British Columbia) Ali Arya, Information Technology (Carleton University) Peter Abrams, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Toronto) Jim Arthur, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Marshall Agueh, Mathematics (University of Victoria) John Beamish, Chair, Physics (University of Alberta) Edward Bierstone, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Yaacov Ben-David, Biophysics (University of Toronto) Herman Brunner, Mathematics (Memorial University) Margaret Beattie, Mathematics (Mount Allison University) Peter Borwein, Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Anne Bourlioux, Mathematics (Universite de Montreal) Hans U. Boden, Chair, Math and Statistics (McMaster University) David Brydges, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Martin Barlow, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Michael Bennett, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Kai Behrendt, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Mark Bauer (University of Calgary) Vijay Bhargava, Electrical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Hichem Ben-El-Mechaiekh,Chair, Mathematics (Brock University) Sydney Bulman-Fleming, Chair, Mathematics (Wilfred Laurier University) Sandra Barr, Acting Head, Earth and Environmental Science (Acadia University) W. Kendal Bushe, Mechanical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Sherryl Bisgrove, Biological Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Mary Berbee, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Jeff Babb, Chair, Mathematics and Statistics (University of Winnipeg) Maxim R. Burke, Chair, Mathematics and Statistics (University of PEI) Susan Baldwin (University of British Columbia) Chris Bose, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Patrick Brosnan, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Michelle Boue (Trent University) John Bowman, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Walter Craig, Mathematics (McMaster University) John Carter, Applied Science and Engineering (University of Toronto) Rustum Choksi, Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Dan Coombs, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Clifton Cunningham, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Mohamed Cheriet, Engineering (École de technologie supérieure, Montreal) Marilyn Chapman (University of British Columbia) Eric Cytrynbaum, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Jingyi Chen, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) K. Carriere Cough, Statistics, (University of Alberta) Richard Craster, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Vladimir Chernousov, Mathematics (University of Alberta) James Colliander, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Christina C. Christara, Computer Science (University of Toronto) John Clague, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Laura Cowen, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Paul Deguire directeur, mathématiques et de statistique (Université de Moncton) Karl Dilcher, Chair, Math. and Stats. (Dalhousie) Lawrence M. Dill (Simon Fraser University) Henri Darmon, Mathematics (McGill University) Rob DeWreede, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Gregory Dudek, Chair, Computer Science (McGill University) Dan Dumont, Director, Molecular and Cellular Biology (University of Toronto) David Dunlop, Physics (University of Toronto) Ivar Ekeland, Math Economics (University of British Columbia) George Elliott, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Kadriye Ercikan, Education (University of British Columbia) Yousry Elsabrouty (The University of Calgary) Neil Emery, Director, Environmental & Life Sciences (Trent University) Roderick Edwards (University of Victoria) Ian Frigaard, Math and Mech. Engineering (University of British Columbia) Don Fraser, Statistics (University of Toronto) Richard Froese, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Don Fisher (University of British Columbia) Eugene Fiume, Computer Science (University of Toronto) John Friedlander, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Jorge Filmus, Molecular and Cellular Biology (University of Toronto) Nassif Ghoussoub, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Randy Goebel, Computing Science (University of Alberta) Dan Gibson, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Andrew Granville, Mathematics (Universite de Montreal) Pengfei Guan, Mathematics (McGill University) Ling Guan, Electrical Engineering (Ryerson) Sean Graham, Botany (University of British Columbia) Dmitri Goussev (Gusev), Chair, Chemistry (Wilfrid Laurier University) Stephen Gustafson, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Terry Gannon, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Veronique Godin, Mathematics (University of Calgary) J. Scott Goble, Education (University of British Columbia) Charles Gale, Chair, Physics (McGill University) Ed Grant, Head,Chemistry (University of British Columbia) Ian Graham, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Jacques Hurtubise, Chair, Mathematics & Statistics (McGill University) Hedley David, Medecine (University of Toronto) Viqar Husain, Chair, Mathematics (U.New Brunswick) Stephen B. Heard Chair, Biology (University of New Brunswick, Fredericton) François Huard, Head, Mathematics (Bishop's University) Nicola J Hodges, School of Human Kinetics (University of British Columbia) Felix Herrmann, Earth and Ocean Science (University of British Columbia) Dr. Holger Hintelmann, Chair, Department of Chemistry (Trent University) Craig Heinke, Physics (University of Alberta) Anita Hubley, Education (The University of British Columbia) Alexander Holroyd, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Reinhard Illner, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Victor Ivrii, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Andrew Irvine (University of British Columbia) Slim Ibrahim (University of Victoria) Sebastian Jaimungal, Statistics (University of Toronto) Lisa Jeffrey, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Daniel James, Physics (University of Toronto) Robert Jerrard, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Rachel Kuske, Head, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Young-June Kim, Physics (University of Toronto) Young-Heon Kim, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Niky Kamran, Mathematics (McGill University) Kalpdrum Passi, Chair, Mathematics & Computer Science (Laurentian University) Boualem Khouider, Mathematics ( University of Victoria) Kalle Karu, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Maria Klawe, Computer Science (President of Harvey Mudd) Patrick Keeling, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Jennifer Klenz, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Leslie R. Kerr, Biology/Psychology (Trent University) Faqir Khanna, Physics (University of Alberta) Don Krug, Education (University of British Columbia) Raymond Kapral, Chemistry (University of Toronto) Anthony Lau, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Robert K. Logan, Physics (University of Toronto) Michael Lamoureux, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Yue Xian Li, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Victor Leung, Electrical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Victor G. LeBlanc, Directeur, Chair, Mathematics (University of Ottawa) Wenyuan Liao (University of Calgary) Mark Lewis, Mathematics (University of Alberta) James Lewis, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Aaron Levin (University of Alberta) Alexander Litvak, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Paul Lasko, Chair, Biology (McGill University) Sheldon Lin, Statistics (University of Toronto) Hoi-Kwong Lo, Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Wendy Lou, Biostatistics (University of Toronto) Ben Liang, Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Bill Langford, Mathematics (Guelph University) Marcelo Laca (University of Victoria) Alan Mackworth, Computer Science (University of British Columbia) Bojan Mohar, Mathematics (Simon Fraser University) Richard G. Miller, Biophysics and Immunology (University of Toronto) Greg Martin, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Robert McCann, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Franklin Mendivil (Acadia University) Akos Magyar, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Brian Marcus, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Barrie McCullough (University of British Columbia, Okanagan) Robert Moody, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Patrick Martone, Botany, (University of British Columbia) Peter Minev, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Amy Metcalfe, Education (University of British Columbia) Jim Mattsson (Simon Fraser University) Bill Milsom, Head, Zoology (University of British Columbia) Eckhard Meinrenken, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Sharon Morsink, Physics (University of Alberta) Bonny Norton, Education (University of British Columbia) Raymond Ng, Computer sc. (University of British Columbia) Adrian Nachman, Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Carl Ollivier-Gooch, P.Eng. (University of British Columbia) Fergal O'Hagan (Trent University) Peter Ottensmeyer, Medical Biophysics (University of Toronto) Don Page, Physics (University of Alberta) Anthony Peirce, Mathematics (University of British Columbia),Ed Perkins, Mathematics (University of British Columbia), Marion Porath (University of British Columbia) Roger Pierre, Directeur, Mathematiques et de statistique (Universite Laval) Cindy Prescott, Forestry (University of British Columbia) Arturo Pianzola, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Royann Petrell (University of British Columbia) Peter Pivovarov (University of Alberta) Daniel D. Pratt, Education (University of British Columbia) Erich Poppitz, Physics (University of Toronto) Ue-Li Pen, Astrophysics (University of Toronto) Toniann Pitassi, Computer Science (University of Toronto) Ian Putnam, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Jeremy Quastel, Mathematics and Statistics (University of Toronto) Christiane Rousseau (Universite de Montreal) David J. Rowe, Physics (University of Toronto) Andrew Rechnitzer, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Cristian Rios, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Chris Radford, Head Mathematics and Statistics (Memorial University) Loren Rieseberg, Botany (University of British Columbia), Dale Rolfsen, Mathematics (University of British Columbia), Reinhard Jetter, Botany (University of British Columbia) Volker Runde, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Omar Rivasplata (University of Alberta) Peter C. Ruben, Director Kinesiology (Simon Fraser University) Steven Rogak, Mech. Eng. (University of British Columbia) Jeffrey Rosenthal, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Jonathan Rose, Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering (University of Toronto) Nancy Reid, Statistics (University of Toronto) Joe Repka, Mathematics (University of Toronto) William Reed, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Gordon Slade, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Stephen Strother, Medical Biophysics (University of Toronto) Gordon Semenoff, Physics (University of British Columbia) Mohamad Sawan, Engineering (Polytechnique, University of Montreal) Viena Stastna (University of Calgary) Fred Sack, Head of Botany (University of British Columbia) Paul Stephenson, Head, Mathematics and Statistics (Acadia University) Raj Srinivasan, Chair, Mathematics (University of Saskatchewan),Brian Seymour, Mathematics (University of British Columbia),Anne Scholefield, Education (University of British Columbia) Jedrzej Sniatycki, Mathematics (University of Calgary) K D Srivastava, Engineering (University of British Columbia) Philip Stamp, Physics (University of British Columbia) Dominik Schoetzau, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Paul L. Smith, Head, Earth and Ocean Sciences (University of British Columbia) Sudarshan Sehgal, Mathematics (University of Alberta) Catherine Sulem, Mathematics (University of Toronto) Theodore Shepherd, Physics (University of Toronto) Vuk Stambolic, Medical Biophysics (University of Toronto) Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann (University of Alberta) Peter Tiidus, Acting Dean, Science (Wilfrid Laurier University) Phillippe Tortell, Botany, (University of British Columbia) John R. Topic (Trent University) Elisabeth Tillier, Genomics (University of Toronto) Tai-Peng Tsai, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Derek J. Thorkelson, Chair, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Mak Trifkovic (University of Victoria) Bill Unruh, Physics (University of British Columbia) Jennifer A. Vadeboncoeur, Education (University of British Columbia) Stephanie van Willigenburg, , Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Andrew Vreugdenhil, Director, Materials Science (Trent University) Frank Weichman, Physics (University of Alberta) Rabab Ward, Electrical Engineering (University of British Columbia) Brent Ward, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Michael Ward, Mathematics (University of British Columbia) Jason Waywitka (University of Alberta) Doug Wiens (University of Alberta) Eric Woolgar, Physics (University of Alberta) Tony Ware, Mathematics (University of Calgary) Shoshana Wodak, Biochemistry, and Molecular Genetics (University of Toronto) Margaret Wyeth (University of Victoria) Glyn Williams-Jones, Earth Sciences (Simon Fraser University) Reem Yassawi, Head, Math (Trent University) Vlad Yaskin (university of Alberta) Janet Ye, Mathematics (University of Victoria) Nora Znotinas, Chair, Physics & Computer Science (Wilfrid Laurier University) Richard Zemel, Computer Science (University of Toronto) Julie Zhou, Mathematics (University of Victoria)

---

[Hat Tip: Genomicron]

John Moore Gets It Right

 
Believe it or not, there are columnists at The National Post who actually understand the issue concerning Gary Goodyear's beliefs. John Moore tells it like it is when he says, ignorance is not a civil right.

Of course it matters whether the Science Minister acknowledges or contests evolution. This isn't a case of a politician who likes to read the Bible and pray -- it's a Cabinet Minister who holds philosophical beliefs that are antithetical to his portfolio. Jonathan Kay insists Christian-hating lefties would never raise similar alarm over a Cabinet minister of another faith. Well this leftie, who holds faith in considerably high regard, would have very serious concerns about an aboriginal justice minister who declined to comment on the efficacy of Western legal systems, and would be even more up in arms if a Scientologist health minister refused to discuss mental illness. And I'm pretty sure the National Post editorial board would have some pretty pointed questions for a Muslim MP given the status of women portfolio.

The first problem with Goodyear is that he fronts the science portfolio in a government that has demonstrated through its most recent budget that it doesn't value the sector. The man delegated to argue the vital importance of science at the Cabinet table doesn't actually know what it is. More significantly, Goodyear's insistence that religion should come to bear on science provides comfort to those who teach their children the falsehood that to follow God you must reject science.

This is the willful dissemination of scientific illiteracy. More frankly put, it is the promotion of stupidity.

I wish I'd written that!

---

Gary Goodyear "Clarifies" Some More

 
Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is being asked of clarify his position on science. Is he, or is he not, anti-science? Specifically, does he reject the scientific fact of evolution? Yesterday, newspapers reported on his wishy-washy definition of evolution. Most people concluded that he is, indeed, a creationist of the sort that rejects science.

Today's National Post documents the evolving strategy of the Conservative Party and their friends. They are trying to make this into an issue about freedom of religion rather than a simple question of scientific literacy [My beliefs not relevant: Goodyear].

In light of those responses, critics were still wondering yesterday whether someone who believes the Earth is just thousands of years old is heading Canada's science and technology sector.

Mr. Goodyear bucked at requests to clarify his point of view yesterday, cutting short a question into whether he defined evolution in the popular Darwinian sense.

"My entire background has been in science, and my personal beliefs are not important," Mr. Goodyear repeated. "What I'm doing and what the government is doing to move this country forward -- that's important."

When pressed, Mr. Goodyear added that there would be no conflict of interest for a minister heading the science and technology industry to hold a belief in creationism.

"Absolutely not. How ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. That's why I didn't answer the question, because it has no relevance," he said.

Hmmm ... let's think about this for a minute. How many people think it's relevant that a Minister of Science and Technology is anti-science?

---

David Asper Doesn't Get It

 
David Asper¹ writes about The Liberal War on Faith in today's issue of The National Post.

Throughout the growth of the current Conservative party, starting with the establishment of Reform, the Alliance and then the merger with the Progressive Conservatives, there has been a festering undercurrent of anti-religious bigotry in the methods of attack used by left-wing critics.

Now, we have a reporter from the Globe following the same script. The essence of the newspaper's front-page slag on Tuesday was that if you have a religious faith that includes the idea of a God who created the heavens and the earth billions of years ago, it must mean you entirely reject the evolutionary process that shaped the life forms that subsequently developed -- and are therefore unfit to be the Minister of Science and Technology.

We need to put a stop to this moving of goalposts. The issue is NOT religious faith. Nobody objects to a Minister of Science who accepts the basic tenets of science and is religious. As Asper points out in his article, it's almost certain that previous ministers of science believed in a God that created the Earth billions of years ago. They also accepted the scientific fact of evolution.

What we can't accept is a Minister of Science who is anti-science. If your religion forces you to reject fundamental facts of science in order to cling to the idea that the Earth in only 10,000 years old then that's a problem. If you believe in such nonsense then you can be a newspaper columnist—or maybe even the owner of a major newspaper—but you can't be in charge of science policy in Canada. It makes us the laughing stock of civilized nations. Even the USA is laughing at us this time, and that's saying a lot.

David Asper is trying to make this into an attack on all religious beliefs but it's not. He should be ashamed of himself for distorting the truth and avoiding the real issue.

On the other hand, anyone who writes this (below) isn't going to listen to reason.

It's also worth noting that the Charter of Rights -- created under a Liberal government --begins with an acknowledgement of the supremacy of God. Our national anthem also calls on God to keep our land glorious and free. So please, enough with the facade of outing people who believe in a higher power.

---

1. David Asper is the Chairman of the National Post newspaper and Executive Vice President of CanWest Global Communications Corp. He is a former trustee of the Fraser Institute, a conservative propaganda machine that masquerades as a research institute. He is a supporter of Conservative Party candidates.

[Photo Credit: University of Toronto]

Goodyear's Bad Day

 
Here's a link to Chris Selley's article on The National Post website [Chris Selley's Full Pundit: Goodyear's bad day].

The article has links to several Canadian journalists. I'm pleased to see that many of them recognize the problem. We can't have a creationist Minister in charge of science.

---

The Future of Science Blogging

 
Daniel Brown of Biochemical Soul is looking for feedback on the future of science blogging [Science Blogging: The Future of Science Communication & Why You Should be a Part of it].

Personally I don't think the science blogosphere is going to attract more than a few percent of scientists and science students. Most of them don't have the time or the interest. Most of my colleagues are completely turned off by blogs. They see blogs as a negative influence on science.

The science blogosphere is a fun and interesting playground for those of us who have eclectic interests and are willing to invest the time and effort to read a few dozen blogs a day, but that's not going to appeal to the average scientist. Daniel does a good job of listing all the benefits of blogging and reading blogs but, in my experience, none of these benefits are convincing for the average scientist.

Frankly I think that's a good thing. My experience with newsgroups over the past twenty years indicates that it's much better to have a small number of really dedicated and interested participants than to try and expand to cover everyone. Besides, the more science blogs there are out there, the most difficult it is to read them all.

---

Four Solar Eclipses on Saturn

 
The inhabitants of Saturn were recently treated to four solar eclipses on the same day. In the video below you can see the four moons and their shadows crossing Saturn. The photos were taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and the video was prepared by National Geographic.

It's exciting to be living at a time when such images are quickly available to the general public. This video would have seemed like magic only a century ago. A century from now it might seem trivial since we may have our own satellites orbiting Saturn.

---

Liberal Science Critic Marc Garneau Says that Believing in Evolution Is not a Job Requirement for the Science Minister

 
Marc Garneau (right) is the Liberal science critic in Canada's House of Commons. The same Globe and Mail article that mentioned Goodyear's "clarification" of his position on evolution has the following quotation from Marc Garneau [Minister clarifies stand on evolution].

On Tuesday, Liberal science critic Marc Garneau said that believing in evolution is not a job requirement for the science minister.

“It is a personal matter. It is a matter of faith.… I don't think it prevents someone from being a good minister,” said the former astronaut, who has been a vocal critic of the government for its cuts to the three granting councils that fund university-based research in Canada.

But Jim Maloway, the New Democratic Party science critic, said that if the minister did not believe in evolution that could influence government policy. “I don't see a commitment to a really broad approach if you are encumbered by the denial of evolution,” he said.

Garneau is dead wrong. If you reject evolution you are anti-science. There's no two ways about it. You cannot deny evolution without attacking the very core of scientific reasoning and evidence-based conclusions. What Garneau is saying is that it's OK for a science minister to be anti-science.

That would be like putting a witch doctor (or a chiropractor) in charge of health care, or a soothsayer in charge of finances.

There may be a place for anti-science creationists in the Federal Cabinet but not in charge of science. Acceptance of the core principles of science is a job requirement because part of the job is gaining the confidence of the scientific community. You can't have a science minister who questions the honesty and integrity of Canadian scientists. Make no mistake about it, that's exactly what creationists do.

We need a new minister of science and we need a new Liberal science critic.¹

---

1. What do other scientists think about this? See Science minister's coyness on evolution worries researchers. Note that the scientists are worried about a creationist in charge of science while the non-scientists don't see it as a big problem.