Monday's Molecule #129: Winner

 
The molecule is the Src protein tyrosine kinase from chicken (Gallus gallus). The scr gene is a proto-oncogene, meaning that is the normal version of an oncogene, or a cancer-causing gene. Mutant alleles of proto-oncogenes are responsible for many types of cancer.

A highly derived version of the normal src gene (v-src) is present in strains of the chicken Rous sarcoma virus discovered by Payton Rous in 1911. RSV causes cancer in chickens and it was the first cancer-causing virus to be identified.

It wasn't until the 1970's that the gene responsible for the cancer was identified and recognized as a derivative of a normal cellular gene involved in signal transduction and regulation of cell growth. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus received the Nobel Prize for identifying the src gene as a proto-oncogene. They are this week's Nobel Laureates.

Many people got the right answer but the first one was Cody Cobb, soon to be a graduate student at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He will be joining me for lunch in a week or two.

---

Today's molecule is very famous so you aren't going to get any hints other than the fact it's from the species Gallus gallus

You need to name the molecule, identify its function, and explain why it is so famous. That will lead you to one or more Nobel Laureates whose Nobel Prize was directly related to this protein and, more importantly, its gene.

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 seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Mike Fraser of the University of Toronto, Jason Oakley of the University of Toronto, 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, and Anne Johnson of Ryerson University.

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.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

---

The figure is from Williams et al. (1997).

Williams, J.C., Weijland, A., Gonfloni, S., Thompson, A., Courtneidge, S.A., Superti-Furga, G., Wierenga, R.K. (1997) The 2.35 A crystal structure of the inactivated form of chicken Src: a dynamic molecule with multiple regulatory interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 274:757-75. [PubMed] [doi:10.1006/jmbi.1997.1426]

Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in Newsweek

 
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum have published an article in Newsweek [Defenders of the Faith: Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause].

The subtitle reveals that Mooney and Kirshenbaum just don't get it. I am a scientist who "blasts" religion. My "cause" is to demonstrate that religion is superstitious nonsense and should be abandoned. There are many people who share my opinion and they aren't all scientists. The fact that I am a scientist isn't really relevant.

The position that Mooney and Kirshenbaum adopt would be equivalent to saying that Christopher Hitchens should back off because he's hurting the "cause" of journalism, or that Rickey Gervais is hurting the "cause" of comedy, or Bill Gates is hurting the "cause" of making tons of money. They make the assumption that atheist scientists are only interested in promoting science (to the American public) and everything else is secondary.

This point has been explained to them hundreds of times. I don't know whether they are deliberately ignoring the facts order to frame the argument in their own terms or whether they are incapable of grasping the distinction we are tying to make.

There are times when Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to be on the verge of understanding. The Newsweek article contains such an example. After the typical rant about how great Francis Collins is and how evil PZ Myers is, they go on to say ....

The public's willingness to reject science for religious reasons is certainly lamentable. But by arguing that science contradicts religion and makes it untenable, many atheists reinforce the very concerns that are keeping people from accepting science to begin with. Someone like Collins, by contrast, can convince those who think science conflicts with their beliefs that this needn't be the case.

This is the same old story we've heard before. Yes, it's true that someone like Francis Collins, who claims that science and religion are compatible, can be a great comfort to people who long to hear this. But that's not the point. The point is whether science and religion really are compatible. That's the question that certain atheists are asking and it won't be settled by pointing to Francis Collins. That's about as absurd as claiming that incompatibility is proven by pointing to Neil deGrasse Tyson or Jerry Coyne.

But wait. Here's where Mooney and Kirshenbaum offer us a glimmer of hope. They come very close to recognizing that the real question is whether science and religion are compatible and not just whether Collins thinks they are. They recognize that there's an "intellectual" question that might be important.

And Collins's approach isn't just good as a strategy to get the public to better appreciate science. The idea that science and religion can be compatible is strong on the intellectual merits as well. Granted, it depends how you define your terms: if your religion holds that Genesis must be read literally, then you are in direct conflict with scientific findings about the age of the Earth, the diversity of life on the planet, and so on. Yet if we consider religion more broadly—in its own considerable diversity—we find many sophisticated believers who've made a peace between their belief and the findings of modern science. It's not just Collins; consider the words of the Dalai Lama: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

Oh dear. Close but no cigar. They're still relying on the argument from authority—in this case the Dalai Lama—and their "evidence" still depends on the fallacy of The Doctrine of Joint Belief. And there's those mysterious "sophisticated believers" that we hear so much about but never actually encounter. Where are they hidden?

Still, there's a glimmer of hope. Keep trying, Chris and Sheril. One of these days you may see a frozen waterfall and everything will become clear.

UPDATE: James Hrynyshyn draws your attention to the same passage from the Newsweek article but he puts a different spin on it [Science v. Atheism: the Dalai Lama gambit]. Imagine that Francis Collins makes the same kind of statement that that Dalai Lama made. Collins would say, "If science proves some belief of Christianity wrong, then Christianity will have to change."

How many Christians want to hear that their religion might be wrong and might have to change?

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

The Calling

 
I'm deeply suspicious of people who think they're doing God's will. But I'm positively frightened by people who believe they have been given responsible government positions (elected or appointed) because it is God's will.

Today I stumbled upon this passage from The Language of God by Francis Collins. He's discussing his appointment to head the Human Genome Project (pp. 118-119).

An intense national search ensued to find a new director. No one was more surprised than I to find the selection process converging on me. Being quite happy at the time leading a genome Center at the University of Michigan, and never having imagined myself as a federal employee, I initially indicated no interest. But the decision haunted me. There was only one Human Genome Project. This was going to be done only once in human history. If it succeeded, the consequences for medicine would be unprecedented. As a believer in God, was this one of those moments where I was somehow being called to take on a larger role in a project that would have profound consequences for our understanding of ourselves? Here was a chance to read the language of God, to determine the intimate details of how humans have come to be. Could I walk away? I have always been suspicious of those who claim to perceive God's will in moments such as this, but the awesome significance of this adventure, and the potential consequences for humankind's relationship with the Creator, could hardly be ignored.

Visiting my daughter in North Carolina in November 1992, I spent a long afternoon praying in a little chapel, seeking guidance about this decision. I did not "hear" God speak—in fact, I have never had that experience. But during those hours, ending in an evensong service that I had not expected, a peace settled over me. A few days later, I accepted the offer.

---

Rationalism vs Superstition: More than just Evolution vs Creationism

 
The Texas Board of Education is doing all of us a great favor by showing that the real fight isn't just evolution vs creationism or science vs religion. The real fight is religion vs everything. In other words, the problem isn't just creationists—it's people with a religious agenda.

We can see this now that the Texas Board of Education has turned its attention to modifying the social studies curriculum. They've appointed a panel of "experts" to recommend changes in the curriculum. There were three "experts" appointed by the conservative camp within the Board and three appointed by other side. The result is reported in The Wall Street Jounral [The Culture Wars' New Front: U.S. History Classes in Texas].

The three reviewers appointed by the moderate and liberal board members are all professors of history or education at Texas universities, including Mr. de la Teja, a former state historian. The reviewers appointed by conservatives include two who run conservative Christian organizations: David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a group that promotes America's Christian heritage; and Rev. Marshall, who preaches that Watergate, the Vietnam War and Hurricane Katrina were God's judgments on the nation's sexual immorality. The third is Daniel Dreisbach, a professor of public affairs at American University.

The conservative reviewers say they believe that children must learn that America's founding principles are biblical. For instance, they say the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution stems from a scriptural understanding of man's fall and inherent sinfulness, or "radical depravity," which means he can be governed only by an intricate system of checks and balances.

The curriculum, they say, should clearly present Christianity as an overall force for good -- and a key reason for American exceptionalism, the notion that the country stands above and apart.

"America is a special place and we need to be sure we communicate that to our children," said Don McLeroy, a leading conservative on the board. "The foundational principles of our country are very biblical.... That needs to come out in the textbooks."

But the emphasis on Christianity as a driving force is disputed by some historians, who focus on the economic motivation of many colonists and the fractured views of religion among the Founding Fathers. "There appears to me too much politics in some of this," said Lybeth Hodges, a professor of history at Texas Woman's University and another of the curriculum reviewers.

Let's imagine for a moment that the conservative reviewers on the panel are theistic evolutionists. (This is a thought experiment, take it as a given.) How would my accommodationist friends deal with their recommendations? Is it okay to teach Christianity in history classes as long as it's kept out of science classes?

I wonder if the accommodationists see the potential problem with their position? They are happy to ally with theists as long as those theists accept science—or at least claim to accept science. But that's not all there is to the conflict between the religious and the non-religious.

What do we teach our children in the public schools? Do we teach them that morality comes from God or do we teach them that people can be moral without God? Or do we avoid the problem altogether and teach them nothing at all about the origins of morality?

In American schools do you teach that America is a Christian nation or do you teach that this is a myth that needs to be abandoned? Or is this another topic that has to be avoided in order to avoid conflicts with the Constitution?

---

Andrew Coyne on Conservative Values

We don't really have a (small "c") conservative party in Canada. The closest thing we have is the (large "C") Conservative Party but their policies include socialized medicine, government support of private industry, and a taxation scheme where the wealthy pay more.

I like Andrew Coyne even though we don't agree on anything. He's a smart guy and he knows what real (small "c") conservative values should look like. Running up huge deficits by increasing government spending is not part of the game. Neither is "corporate welfare."

Here's Andrew Coyne explaining why he disagrees with the current Canadian government. Apparently it has something to do with "principles," whatever they are.¹

---

1. No Canadian political party seems to have them.

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

Bastille Day

Today is the Fête Nationale in France known also as "le quatorze juillet" or Bastille Day.

This is the day in 1789 when French citizens stormed and captured the Bastille—a Royalist fortress in Paris. It marks the symbolic beginning of the French revolution although the real beginning is when the Third Estate transformed itself into the National Assembly on June 17, 1789 [Tennis Court Oath].

Ms. Sandwalk and I visited the site of the Bastille (Place de la Bastille) when we were in Paris last year. There's nothing left of the former castle but the site still resonates with meaning and history.

One of Ms Sandwalk's ancestors, William Playfair participated in the storming of the Bastille.

In honor of the French national day I invite you to sing the French national anthem, La Marseillaise. An English translation is provided so you can see that La Marseillaise is truly a revolutionary call to arms. (A much better translation can be found here.)

---

Check out Uncertain Principles for another version of La Marseillaise—this is the famous scene in Casablanca.

Monday's Molecule #129

 
Today's molecule is very famous so you aren't going to get any hints other than the fact it's from the species Gallus gallus

You need to name the molecule, identify its function, and explain why it is so famous. That will lead you to one or more Nobel Laureates whose Nobel Prize was directly related to this protein and, more importantly, its gene.

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 seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Mike Fraser of the University of Toronto, Jason Oakley of the University of Toronto, 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, and Anne Johnson of Ryerson University.

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.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

---

The figure is from Williams et al. (1997).
Williams, J.C., Weijland, A., Gonfloni, S., Thompson, A., Courtneidge, S.A., Superti-Furga, G., Wierenga, R.K. (1997) The 2.35 A crystal structure of the inactivated form of chicken Src: a dynamic molecule with multiple regulatory interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 274:757-75. [PubMed] [doi:10.1006/jmbi.1997.1426]

Timmy's Takes Manhattan

 
Tim Hortons is opening 13 stores in Manhattan and several more in Brooklyn. The first nine stores started serving coffee and donuts yesterday. Click here for a photo of New Yorkers lining up at the Penn Station store. The story even made the New York Times.

This is all part of a secret plot by Canadians to take over the best parts of the USA. (There are no plans to open stores in Texas.) Once we succeed we will impose universal health care¹ and ban Starbucks.

---

1. Also known as socialized medicine.

Sequencing Koreans

 
There are several complete¹ sequences of human genomes. The standard reference sequence is the one published at NCBI as a result of the human genome project It is a composite sequence from several individuals.

There are four personal genomes available. Craig Ventor, Jim Watson, an African (Yoruban), and an individual from China. Last May the sequence of a Korean was published in Genome Research.

Ahn, S.M., Kim, T.H., Lee, S., Kim, D., Ghang, H., Kim, D.S., Kim, B.C., Kim, S.Y., Kim, W.Y., Kim, C., Park, D., Lee, Y.S., Kim, S., Reja, R., Jho, S., Kim, C.G., Cha, J.Y., Kim, K.H., Lee, B., Bhak, J., Kim, S.J. (2009) The first Korean genome sequence and analysis: Full genome sequencing for a socio-ethnic group. Genome Res. 2009 Jun 24. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [doi: 10.1101/gr.092197.109],

Pay attention to the dates ... it's going to be important.

This paper was received by the journal on Feb. 3, 2009. It was accepted on May 22, 2009 and published online on May 26, 2009. The sequence was posted on a Korean website in December 2008 and it has been freely available since then.

Another Korean group published a paper In Nature last week.

Kim, J.I., Ju, Y.S., Park, H., Kim, S., Leek S., Yi, J.H., Mudge, J., Miller, N.A., Hong, D., Bell, C.J., Kim, H.S., Chung, I.S., Lee, W.C., Lee, J.S., Seo, S.H., Yun, J.Y., Woo, H.N., Lee, H., Suh, D., Lee, S., Kim, H.J., Yavartanoo, M., Kwak, M., Zheng, Y., Lee, M.K., Park, H., Kim, J.Y., Gokcumen, O., Mills, R.E., Zaranek, A.W., Thakuria, J., Wu, X., Kim, R.W., Huntley, J.J., Luo, S., Schroth, G.P., Wu, T.D., Kim, H., Yang, K.S., Park, W.Y., Kim, H., Church, G.M., Lee, C., Kingsmore, S.F., Seo, J.S. (2009) A highly annotated whole-genome sequence of a Korean individual. Nature July 8 [epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [doi: 10.1038/nature08211]

This paper was received by the journal on March 6, 2009. It was accepted on June 18, 2009 and published online on July 8, 2009.

Neither paper mentions the other. There is nothing in the Nature paper that acknowledges the prior publication of the complete genome of a Korean. (Normally in circumstances like this you would expect a note at the end of the paper.)

Were the authors of the Nature paper completely unaware of the other work and the availability of the sequence data? Probably not, since it's mentioned in the press release.

The announcement, however, is likely to fuel a dispute over who was the first to have completed a genome map in Korea. Professor Kim Seong-jin, director of the Lee Gil-ya Cancer and Diabetes Research Institute at Gachon University of Medicine and Science in Incheon, completed a genome map in December last year and published it in the international journal Genome Research.

Seo said, “Since the accuracy is inadequate, (Kim’s) map cannot be considered Korea’s first.”

Gachon professor Ahn Seong-min refuted Seo’s claim, however, saying, “Professor Kim’s genomes were analyzed 29 times and the map is no less accurate than Professor Seo’s.”

It's going to be very difficult for the authors of the second paper to defend their actions. It looks like they behaved unethically by completely ignoring their competitors in their publication and then making a feeble excuse in the press release.

I also think the authors of the first paper should have mentioned that another Korean genome was about to be published although they probably did not have access to the data.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My first thoughts are that Nature ought to take a stand and retract the paper. My second thoughts are that Korean science seems to be very competitive and the scientific standars in that country seem to be more "flexible" than elsewhere.

---

1. Published sequences don't include centromeric regions and other regions with large blocks of repetitive DNA.

Dennis Kucinich on Canadian Health Care Statistics

 
If I were an American I would have voted for Dennis Kucinich during the Democratic primaries. Here's why ...


David Gratzer is a Canadian psychiatrist and a senior fellow at the Manhatten Institute. He has a practice in Toronto. His latest book is The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.

The Wikipedia article on David Gratzer has a section titled Allegations regarding the misuse of statistics.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

The Doctrine of Joint Belief

The Doctrine of Joint Belief is the idea that just because a single person holds two different worldviews (e.g. science and religion, Christianity and racism, free market capitalism and universal health care) it follows logically that those two views are compatible. Clay Shirky has written a nice summary of the logical fallacy behind the doctrine [Religion and Science]. His article is effective because he used to believe in The Doctrine of Joint Belief.

Lately, Chris Mooney has been arguing in books and blogs that the so-called "new atheists" are hurting his cause by arguing that science and religion are incompatible. Mostly it's a political argument, and that makes sense because Chris Mooney is interested in policy and politics and not science or philosophy.

On Friday, however, Chris shifted gears and tried to defend accommodationism on logical grounds. This is not his forte [Eugenie Scott Powerfully Makes the Case for Science-Religion Compatibility]. It's the classic defense according to The Doctrine of Joint Belief, explained in this case by Eugenie Scott.



Jerry Coyne exhibits a great deal of patience when he explains, for about the millionth time, why the doctrine is logically absurd [Eugenie Scott and Chris Mooney dissemble about accommodationism].

Isn't it about time for one of the accommodationists to speak up and admit that this argument makes no sense? It's about as logical as saying science and Intelligent Design Creationism are compatible because of Michael Behe.

---

Nobel Laureate: Adolf Butenandt

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1939.

"for his work on sex hormones"




Adolf Friedrich Johann Butenandt (1903 - 1995) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the structure and function of sex hormones, particularly estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone.

He was not allowed to accept the Nobel Prize in 1939. After the war, in 1949, he was given the medal at a special ceremony.

He shared the 1939 Nobel Prize with Leopold Ruzicka.

The original (1939) award presentation describes Butenandt's isolation and identification of estradiol.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates

As recently as twelve years ago, very little was known about the nature of the sex hormones. As regards the oestrogenic, or follicle, hormone it was established that extracts from certain organs, e.g. the ovaries and placenta, bring about the characteristic oestrus phenomena in castrated female rats. Only a few observations were available concerning the stability and solubility of their active principles. Further development in the chemistry of the oestrogenic hormones could not take place until the purely biological discoveries by Allen and Doisy in 1923 and by Aschheim and Zondek in 1927 had been made.

Butenandt made the first big step forward in clarifying the chemistry of the follicle hormone in 1929 in Göttingen, simultaneously with Doisy in the United States. Both workers succeeded in isolating from the urine of pregnant women a substance in crystalline form having oestrogenic effects. Butenandt named this substance folliculine, a designation which was later changed to oestrone. He established that its empirical formula was C18H22O2, and that it was an oxyketone.

Shortly after the discovery of oestrone, Marrian in London (1930) isolated from the urine of pregnant women a new hormone which he called oestriol. Butenandt confirmed Marrian's discovery and explained the relationship between the new substance and oestrone. The relation between sterols and oestrogenic substances which had been assumed on crystallographical grounds became probable from the chemical point of view only after Butenandt and Marrian had shown, independently of one another, that only three benzoide double bonds enter into the ring system of these substances.

In 1932, Butenandt was able, from observations made in spectral analysis, and especially on the basis of the then established correct formula of cholesterol to draw up the formulae of the chemical structure of oestrone and oestriol. But there remained the important task of proving the chemical structure of the ring system as assumed by Butenandt. By breaking down the oestriol molecule stage by stage Butenandt proved that both œstrogenic hormones contained a phenanthrene core. At the same time he was able to obtain the same dimethyl phenanthrene from etiobilianic acid, a transformation product of cholic acid. He had thus confirmed the close relationship existing between the follicle hormones on the one hand and the bile acids and sterols on the other.

---

[Photo Credit: ULLSTEIN BILD from Nature]

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.

Matt Nisbet Is Puzzled

 
The results of the Pew Science Survey tell us that American love science and they love scientists. Here's what the Pew researchers say in the summary ...

Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. Most also say that government investments in science, as well as engineering and technology, pay off in the long run.

And scientists are very highly rated compared with members of other professions: Only members of the military and teachers are more likely to be viewed as contributing a lot to society's well-being.

Matt Nisbet believes every word. He points out that the "experts" (e.g. he and his buddies) have been saying this for years. As he puts it in his most recent posting [On the Pew Science Survey, Beware the Fall from Grace Narrative].

I shared a similar observation in a post yesterday, detailing the Pew results that indicate an almost unrivaled amount of cultural respect, admiration, authority, and deference to science and scientists.

Matt can't understand why some of us are a bit skeptical. He doesn't seem to be the least bit concerned about a public who have "an almost unrivaled amount of cultural respect, admiration, authority, and deference to science and scientists" and yet reject evolution, the role of humans in global warming, and the importance of vaccinating your children. Matt never bothers to ask why a public that admires science so much would flock to homeopaths, buy Q-ray bracelets, and read the astrology column in the daily newspaper.

That's because Matt Nisbet isn't a scientist. He isn't skeptical and he never questions his own assumptions. Matt thinks that when people say they admire and respect science and scientists then that's the gospel truth. It never occurs to him to wonder what they mean by "science" and "scientists" and it never occurs to him to wonder about the obvious conflict between what people say in one question and what they say in another. How does he account for the fact that the general public does not support high quality science education for their children in spite of the fact they have a great respect for science?

One of the consequences of Matt's belief is that he proposes solutions to the science literacy problem based on the "fact" that the public has a great deal of confidence in scientists. For example, he quotes from an article he is about to publish in a science journal.

The implication is that relative to authority, deference, and respect, scientists have earned a rich bounty of perceptual capital. When controversies occur, the challenge is to understand how to use this capital to sponsor dialogue, invite differing perspectives, facilitate public participation, reach consensus when appropriate, learn from disagreement, and avoid common communication mistakes that undermine these goals.

I disagree with the premise. I think that real public respect for science is much lower than the Pew summary indicates. To me the survey results suggests a general public that doesn't understand science very well and doesn't trust scientists.

I think that scientists, and everyone else, have to concentrate on educating the general public about the differences between science and superstition. I think that scientists have to work on gaining true respect and authority and that it's a huge mistake to assume they already have it. I'm not sure they ever had it in North America.

Part of gaining more respect involves cleaning our own house and educating the media. We also need to stop listening to the so-called expects on science communication.

---

The Good News ....

 
The good news is that FOX is doing its proper job of informing America about religious beliefs in other countries. The bad news is that many FOX news viewers probably had a heart attack when they saw this ...

I know lots of people—mostly accommodationists—who think that religion is here to stay and it's a waste of time trying to fight it. I wonder if they've ever been to Western Europe?

---

[Hat Tip: Pharyngula]

The PEW Poll on Science in America

 
There is much to digest in the recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science [Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Overview].

One of the most remarkable findings isn't new: the American public claims to have a great deal of respect for scientists while, at the same time, a substantial percentage rejects evolution and the scientific conclusions on climate change and vaccinations.

It's hard to reconcile these findings. If most people respect scientists then why do they disagree with the science?

Everyone is going to focus on different aspects of this poll. Matt Nisbet has already weighed in with his interpretation [Pew Survey of Scientists & the Public: Implications for Public Engagement and Communication]. His first conclusion is something that he has claimed many times.

1. In the U.S., scientists and their organizations enjoy almost unrivaled respect, admiration, and cultural authority. Americans overwhelmingly trust scientists, support scientific funding, and believe in the promise of research and technology. Among institutions, only the military enjoys greater admiration and deference.

It's a strange kind of "authority" that we scientists enjoy when only 32% of the general public believe that humans evolved due to natural processes. Among scientists, 87% hold this view. If that's what you call "trust" then I'd hate to see what "distrust" looks like!

Here are some highlights from the report [Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media].

More than half of the public (55%) says that science and religion are “often in conflict.” Close to four-in-ten (38%) take the opposite view that science and religion are “mostly compatible.” Yet the balance is reversed when people are asked about science’s compatibility with their own religious beliefs. Only 36% say science sometimes conflicts with their own religious beliefs and six-in-ten (61%) say it does not.

Highly observant Americans are among the most likely to see conflicts between science and their own religious beliefs. But less religiously observant people are more likely to see broader conflicts between science and religion in general. Among those who attend religious services at least weekly, 46% say they see a conflict between science and their religious beliefs (52% do not). Among those who seldom or never attend services, just 21% see a conflict. Yet 60% of those who seldom or never attend services believe science and religion are “often in conflict,” compared with 48% of Americans who attend religious services weekly or more often.

---

Religious belief among scientists varies somewhat by sex, age and scientific specialty. Younger scientists are substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God. In addition, more chemists than those in other specialties say they believe in God. More men (44%) than women (36%) say they believe neither in God nor a higher power; belief in God is comparable for men and women scientists, but more women than men profess belief in a different supreme being or higher power.

This result confirms some other studies showing that younger scientists are more religious than older scientists. Some people see this as the beginning of a trend leading to scientists becoming more religious.

I suppose that's possible in America but it's also possible that the longer you are a scientist, the more likely you are to abandon your religious beliefs.

---

When asked about the importance of various factors that motivated them to pursue careers in science, an overwhelming share of scientists (86%) say an interest in solving intellectually challenging problems was very important. This view is widely shared across scientific specialties.

Substantially smaller percentages of scientists say the desire to work for the public good (41%) and the desire to make an important discovery (30%) were very important reasons for choosing science as a career. However, large majorities do cite these factors as at least somewhat important (81% work for public good, 74% make important discovery).

....

Few scientists say that the desire for a financially rewarding career was a very important part of their decision to become a scientist (4%). However, a third (33%) say this was at least somewhat important in their choice of career.

As might be expected, far more scientists working in industry than those working in other sectors view a desire for a financially rewarding career as very or somewhat important. About half of industry scientists (51%) say this, compared with only about three-in-ten of those working for government (31%), academia (29%) and for non-profits (29%).

More generally, a far larger share of those in the applied sciences (43%) attribute their career choice at least in part to a desire for a financially rewarding career, compared with 25% of those in basic sciences. Among scientific specialties, those in chemistry (40%) are more likely than those in other fields to say financial rewards were a consideration in their career choice.

---