Bacteria in Your Mouth

 
A paper examining the diverstiy of human salivary bacteria has recently appeared in the journal Genome Research (Nasidze et al. 2009).

The authors looked at 120 individuals from different locations all over the world. They extracted DNA from their saliva and isolated small fragments of DNA copied from a highly variable region of 16S ribosomal RNA. On average, they sequenced 120 different DNA fragments from each individual. After eliminating artifacts they were left with 14,115 fragments.

The DNA sequences were compared with a large database of bacterial sequences in order to identify the bacterial species present in the mouths of each person. In most cases it was possible to positively identify the genus although they did find 196 sequences that were not in the database. These are probably unknown species of bacteria.

There were 101 different types of bacteria (genera). Each person has between six and thirty different species of bacteria in their mouth. There are about 45 different genera in each location (e.g. Bolivia, Congo, China, California, Germany, etc.).

Some genera were seen only once while others are quite common. The most common ones are listed below.

Actinomyces: Actinomyces are rod-shaped, gram positive bacteria that can survive under both aerobic (oxygen) and anaerobic conditions. Such bacteria are called facultative anaerobes. A. naeslundii forms dental placque by adhering to the surface of your teeth.

Enterobacter: Enterobacter species belong to the γ-proteobacteria group of gram negative bacteria. They are facultative anaerobes. Enterobacter are related to Escherichia coli—no examples of E. coli were found in this study.

Fusobacterium: These are gram negative, anaerobic, bacteria that are normal inhabitants of the oral cavity. They cause periodontal disease under some (unknown?) circumstances .

Granulicatella: The Granulicatella species belong to the phylum Firmicutes. They are gram positive bacteria related to Streptococcus.

Haemophilus: These species belong to the γ-proteobacteria as well. They are rod-shaped, gram negative bacteria related to E. coli.

Leptotrichia: The Leptotrichia species are long, filamentous, gram negative, anaerobic, bacteria in the Bacteroides group.

Neisseria: Neissria is a genus in the β-proteobacteria group. They are usually small, aerobic, bacteria. N. gonorrhoeae causes gonorrhea and N. meningitidis causes meningitis but most of the species in your mouth are harmless.

Porphyromonas: These are gram negative, anaerobic, members of the Bacteriodes group. P. gingivalis is normally harmless but it can cause periodontal disease.

Prevotella: Prevotella species are gram negative, rod-shaped, anaerobic, bacteria closely related to Bacteriodes. They are among the most common bacteria in the intestines of sheep and cattle where they aid digestion.

Rothia: These gram negative bacteria belong to the phylum Actinobacteria. They are related to micrococcus.

Serratia: These are motile, rod-shaped, gram negative bacteria. S. marcescens grows in bathrooms where it is often found on tile grout. The bacteria produce a characteristic red pigment and that's why contaminated areas appear pink.

Streptococcus: Streptococcus species are small, gram negative, nonmotile, and round. They are mostly facultative anaerobes. Individual bacteria associate in long chains. It is the most common genus in mouth cultures.

Vellionella: These common species are gram negative, anaerobic cocci.

There are problems with bacterial phylogeny, especially with a classification that relies exclusively on the sequences of ribosomal RNA [Bacteria Phylogeny: Facing Up to the Problems]. Reliable trees can be constructed using concatenated sequences and these trees (see below) reveal that the main groups of bacteria diverged from each other billions of years ago.



(You can see a high resolution image here.)

Note that the Firmicutes (red) are on the same branch as Actinobacteria (olive green) but these two groups are still as distantly related as dogs and dandelions. The α-proteobacteria (orange) are also very distantly related. The diversity of bacterial species in your mouth is truly remarkable.

Stoneking's group was interested in the differences between humans and especially between groups living in different parts of the world. Stoneking was one of the original authors on the Mitochondrial Eve paper so I suspect he was looking for bacterial markers that he could use to trace human ancestry.

Unfortunately, there isn't much difference between individuals or between groups from different parts of the world. The most significant geographical variation is between the samples from the Congo and everyone else. People in the Congo have a higher percentage of Enterobacteria. The only other significant difference is that there tend to be fewer Prevotella in people from Louisiana.

The somewhat surprising conclusion is that diet, culture, and environment don't seem to play much of a role in the diversity of the human salivary microbiome.

---

Nasidze, I., Li, J., Quinque, D., Tang, K., and Stoneking, M. (200() Global diversity in the human salivary microbiome. Genome Res. Published in Advance February 27, 2009, [doi:10.1101/gr.084616.108] [Genome Research]

I. Nasidze, J. Li, D. Quinque, K. Tang, M. Stoneking (2009). Global diversity in the human salivary microbiome Genome Research DOI: 10.1101/gr.084616.108

When Chiropractors Get Angry ....

 
Gary Goodyear is Canada's Minister of State (Science and Technology). He's also a chiropractor.

Last week he met with two representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). CAUT has a long history of lobbying in favor of increased funding for university research. Apparently the meeting didn't go well [Researchers fear 'stagnation' under Tories].

The screaming erupted last Wednesday afternoon, just down the street from Parliament Hill, in the offices of a Conservative cabinet minister.

Two officials with Canadian Association of University Teachers sat on one side of a boardroom table and on the other sat Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology, his policy adviser Wesley Moore and a civil servant ready to take notes.

CAUT, a lobby group that represents 65,000 staff at 121 colleges and universities, had planned to raise concerns over the government's handling of research funding. But within moments, it became clear they wouldn't get very far.

“The minister was very angry,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. “He was raising his voice and pointing his finger … He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, ‘A lot of our members don't love it'… and he said, ‘That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.'”

The talks, Mr. Robinson said, went from bad to worse. In 15 years on the job, he “never had a meeting like that.”

Mr. Goodyear agrees. “I, too, have never had a meeting like that. It was a unique experience and one I don't care to repeat.”

I don't know what could possibly have gone wrong. Perhaps it was something that Mr. Goodyear said?

Mr. Goodyear said he has met university presidents, deans of research, and researchers themselves and believes government critics are few. “You're going to see that one person who didn't get what they wanted,” he said. But “eight out of 10 folks I talk to get it … they are very positive.”

Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., said the government has been steadily investing in science and technology since 2006, with a new emphasis on commercialization and that it has designed an overall strategy to ensure Canada remains a world leader in research.

“We have done everything right,” he said.

Or maybe it had something to with the change in science policy since the Conservatives took over in 2006?

After years of double-digit budget increases in the early 2000s, government contributions in recent years to NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR have barely kept pace with inflation – and last year they underwent a government-mandated strategic review to reduce their spending.

So while the Barack Obama administration in Washington has added $10-billion (U.S.) to finance basic research in the United States, the three agencies that back basic research in Canada must cut spending by $148-million over the next three years.

CIHR, for example, Canada's main funding body for medical research, has to find about $35-million in savings by 2012, and $28-million of that is by eliminating a program that provided grants to research teams.

In any case, it ended badly ...

CAUT, however, is less confident. It was the position of researchers fretting for the future the lobby group hoped to represent at last week's meeting with Mr. Goodyear.

They had barely begun to state their case, Mr. Robinson said, when the minister accused them of twisting facts.

When CAUT staff said the Conservatives have a spotty record on science and noted they abolished the office of the national science adviser, Mr. Robinson said, the minister's assistant screamed at them to shut up.

“Then the minister said, ‘You've burned all your bridges with us!' and they stormed out.

“In all the meetings I've been in like this, I've never been shouted at and told to shut up,” Mr. Robinson said. The civil servant who escorted them to the elevator suggested it would not even be a good idea to return to the minister's office to collect their coats, he said. Instead, she retrieved them.

This meeting is more extreme than most but it confirms an impression I had when I used to go up to Ottawa for those lobbying weeks in March. When dealing with the Conservatives, the only workable strategy is to vote them out of office as quickly as possible.

Trying to reason with them doesn't work.

---

Liberal Party Policy Development Workshop

 
Here's where I'll be this evening.

WHEN:
Monday, March 2, 2009
7:30 - 10:00 PM

WHERE:
Mississauga Central Library
Meeting Room #3, second floor

PRICE:
Cost: $5 (to recover room and refreshment costs)

CONTACT:
For more information, please contact
Sharon McCarthy 905 828 5786
Omar Alghabra 416 564 5468

NOTES:
The Mississauga-Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association is organizing an informative and engaging workshop on policy development and promotion. The workshop will be facilitated and presented by Maryanne Kampouris, Vice President, Policy, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)

The session will discuss policy development process touching upon different components, including Party structure, Policy Structure, role of the riding association, role of the policy committee with practical ideas on how to engage constituents in 'ideas' or policy discussions.

The session will include practical discussion on how riding associations can proceed in engaging their members and their constituents in this process.

The purpose of this workshop is to empower Liberals and educate them on how to convert their policy ideas into real resolutions that can make a difference, and how to promote and advocate for their policy ideas.

Does anyone have any suggestions? How can the Liberal riding associations engage voters and make them care about defeating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?

We should probably start with hiring a proofreader for press releases but is there anything else?

---

Can We Win in Afghanistan?

 
It's seems like only a few years ago (March 6, 2006) when Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this ...

A debate on whether Canadian troops should be in Afghanistan would put the troops in danger, and any attempt to pull them back would be a betrayal, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper, speaking after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, stressed that the previous Liberal government committed the troops to their Afghan mission, which has proved deadly in recent weeks, and that the Conservatives will honour the commitment.

"I'm saying that Canadians don't cut and run at the first sign of trouble," he told reporters. "That's the nature of this country, and when we send troops into the field, I expect Canadians to support those troops." He repeatedly rejected the idea of a debate and said his government will not make decisions based on opinion polls.

"I understand the frustrations," he said. "Perhaps the previous government should have had a vote on the deployment, but that was not their decision. The decision was taken and we can't change our opinion when the troops are in danger."

He did not say why a debate in Canada would put soldiers at risk in Afghanistan, but he stressed it is "a very dangerous mission. "It's not the intention of this government to question the particular commitment when our troops are in danger," he said. "Such a debate or such a lack of strength by any of the political parties in Canada will merely weaken the resolve of our troops and will even put our troops in even more danger."

At the time, the issue was all about "supporting the troops." The danger, according to Harper, was in raising the possibility that our soldiers might have died in vain. That's unacceptable to many Canadians. Unacceptable, perhaps, but is it true?

Here's what Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday, according to The Canadian Press [Western forces alone can't beat Afghan insurgents: Harper].

Western forces alone can never defeat the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama better realize that in shaping his strategy there, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In an interview aired Sunday on the U.S. cable news network CNN, Harper said he's "delighted" the president is sending more troops to the country in the short term.

Many of them will be deployed in the Kandahar region, where more than 2,000 Canadian soldiers already on the ground can use the help.

But in the longer run, said Harper, it's the government in Kabul that will have to run its own country and be responsible for its own security.

"We're not going to win this war just by staying," he told interviewer Fareed Zakaria.

"Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had - my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it's probably had an insurgency forever of some kind."

"What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency."

Asked if the current administration of President Hamid Karzai has the legitimacy to do that, Harper replied: "There is no doubt that governance in Afghanistan has to improve, and has to improve, and has to improve, much more quickly than we've seen."

Harper has repeatedly stated he's sticking to a commitment to pull Canadian combat forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2011, although Canada would likely maintain a more limited presence focusing on development and reconstruction.

Obama said on his recent visit to Ottawa he didn't press the prime minister to change his mind. But if the U.S. leader did ask him to stay, Harper said Sunday, he'd want to know more about the long-term goals and the ultimate end date for the mission.

"Over the long haul, if President Obama wants anybody to do more, I would ask very hard questions about what is your strategy for success and for an eventual departure."

The comments are not a radical departure from Harper's past observations but he has rarely been so blunt in assessing the situation.

It's true that right now Canada is committed to withdrawal in 2011, so, in that sense, these comments don't represent a shift in policy.

However, Harper's current "bluntness" does make some of his earlier comments look hypocritical. If he really knew his history, as he now claims, then he has known all along that foreign troops can't impose an unpopular government on the people of Afghanistan. In other words, he knew that Canadian troops would die in a hopeless cause.

And why is Harper "delighted" that more US soldiers are about to die in Afghanistan in the same hopeless cause?

Now we need to hear from Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party. Can he be as honest with the Canadian people as Harper was yesterday? I hope he can.

---

[Thanks to The Galloping Beaver and Canadian Cynic]

Gasoline Temperature Maps

 
I recently posted about problems with the Alberta oil sands and the impact on carbon emissions and the environment [The Problem with the Alberta Oil Sands].

I noted that Alberta had received lots of money from the oil companies and suggested that the provincial government was well-positioned to take the lead in developing cleaner methods of extracting oil. I specifically said that the province had "plenty of room to manoeuvre."

One commenter noted that the provincial government doesn't have as much money as we think. But that wasn't the entire point. I was also referring to the fact that provincial income taxes are lower in Alberta and the province does not have a sales tax.

I was thinking about gasoline prices as well. Here's a map of current gas prices across Canada from GasBuddy.com. Most of the differences are due to taxes. Notice anything peculiar about Alberta—the province that's being accused of so much pollution? I think there's room to manoeuvre if it's serious about climate change.


Here's the USA map for comparison.



A typical US price is $2 per (US) gallon. The current Canadian dollar is equivalent to about 0.8 US dollars and there are 3.79 litres per US gallon. This means that a typical US gas price of $2.00/gal is equivalent to 53¢(US)/liter or 66¢(CDN)/liter.

A typical price for Canadian gas is about 86¢(CDN)/liter so the USA is selling gasoline for 20% less than Canada. I think this is mostly due to lower taxes.

I don't know what the current price of gasoline is in Europe but I suspect it's much more.

---

Come Ride an "Atheist" Streetcar on the Streets of Toronto!

 
The Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign is throwing a party on Friday night. Meet for food and drinks at the Centre for Inquiry on Beverly St. then take a one hour ride on a TTC streetcar bearing the atheist ad [Toronto Streetcar Party Tickets Now on Sale!].

A party in the downtown Toronto area on a streetcar and at the Centre for Inquiry building. Ticket holders will receive one ride on a streetcar around various landmarks in the downtown Toronto area and also have a chance to mingle, talk, and party with other atheists, secularists, and humanists at the Centre for Inquiry. Drinks and food will be available for purchase.

This is your chance to meet and thank the organizers who raised the money and got the ads on the buses (and streetcars). Buy a ticket and help support the cause in other Canadian cities.

---

Free Speech in Ottawa

 
Some of you might recognize these people in spite of their attempts to disguise themselves!¹

They are protesting the decision by OC Transpo in Ottawa (Canada) to ban the atheist ads on city buses. Apparently it's okay to run Christian ads but the atheist ad is "too controversial."

The Humanist Association of Ottawa wants you to show up at Ottawa City Hall on Wednesday March 11 when the city council is scheduled to vote on a motion to overrule OC Transpo and allow the ads [Protest the bigots at City Hall]. Several members of council are sympathetic and the first vote last month was a tie. It only takes one more council member to get the ads on the buses.

Atheist Bus Ottawa has put up a petition that you can sign. Do it now!

---

1. To find out who they are you have to sign the petition and see who else has signed!

Playing Chess with Pigeons

 
It's the blogiversary of Troy Britain's blog Playing Chess with Pigeons. Today it is one year old.

Congratulations Troy! Check out today's posting to see the cake [It’s Playing Chess with Pigeons 1st Birthday!]. Look in the right sidebar to see where the title of the blog comes from. It's really clever—I'd love to quote it here but if I do that you might not want to read it in situ and that would be a shame.

---

Massimo Pigliucci vs Jonathan Wells

 
Greg Laden found this old video of a moderated discussion between Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Wells [Massimo Pigliucci v Jonathan Wells on evolution and intelligent design...].

It's actually pretty good. If you don't pay close attention, you might even mistake Jonathan Wells for someone intelligent.

---

When Atheism Is the Norm

 
The Friendly Atheist has posted an interesting comment on what's it's like to live in Denmark or Sweden [What Happens When Atheism is the Norm Instead of the Exception?].

His comments are based on a recent article in The New York Times that discussed that topic [Scandanavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists].

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

Which is why he insists at some length that what he and his wife and children experienced was quite the opposite: “a society — a markedly irreligious society — that was, above all, moral, stable, humane and deeply good.”

This is a very important issue. You should read the article by Peter Steinfels and the posting by Hemant Mehta. I often encounter otherwise intelligent people who try to tell me that religion is here to stay—it will never disappear. Those people really need to get out more. We already have societies today where religion, and belief in God, are minority views.

As you might imagine, there won't be too many attempts to teach creationism in Danish and Swedish schools. That's not because their courts are good at keeping religion out of the schools, it's because the hearts and minds of the people have changed. Rationalism is winning over superstition.

It could happen in America. I think it is happening.

---

The Problem with the Alberta Oil Sands

 

This month's issue of National Geographic has a lengthy article on the Alberta oil sands [The Canadian Oil Boom].

The U.S. imports more oil from Canada than from any other nation, about 19 percent of its total foreign supply, and around half of that now comes from the oil sands. Anything that reduces our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, many Americans would say, is a good thing. But clawing and cooking a barrel of crude from the oil sands emits as much as three times more carbon dioxide than letting one gush from the ground in Saudi Arabia. The oil sands are still a tiny part of the world's carbon problem—they account for less than a tenth of one percent of global CO2 emissions—but to many environmentalists they are the thin end of the wedge, the first step along a path that could lead to other, even dirtier sources of oil: producing it from oil shale or coal. "Oil sands represent a decision point for North America and the world," says Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, a moderate and widely respected Canadian environmental group. "Are we going to get serious about alternative energy, or are we going to go down the unconventional-oil track? The fact that we're willing to move four tons of earth for a single barrel really shows that the world is running out of easy oil."

Canadians know there's a problem but politicians are very reluctant to address it. Albertans have been very vocal in playing the victim card in Canadian politics. They have successfully convinced people that the province was hard done by in the past when the evil citizens of Ontario and Quebec tried to deprive them of their right to keep all the oil money for themselves, instead of sharing it with less fortunate Canadians.

Today, any attempt by the Federal government to impose restrictions on Alberta will be viewed as an act of war.

There's an obvious solution. The government of Alberta has amassed a fortune in oil revenues. Even in these tough economic times, it still has plenty of room to manoeuvre.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the provincial government took steps to reduce green house gas emissions and develop greener ways of extracting oil? Wouldn't it be wonderful if they took the lead in recognizing there's a problem and start to deal with it? There's some evidence that the Alberta government might be headed in that direction [National Geographic oilsands portrayal "fair": environment minister].

Of course they'd have to abandon the whining about Alberta being a victim of the East. In the long run, that may be very hard to do.

---

[Photo Credit: Peter Essick, National Geographic]

United Kingdom Protects Science Budget

 
From NatureNews: Brown pledges to protect science during downturn.

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

How stupid is that?

---

Have You Been Scammed by Nigerians? Get Compensation!!!

 

Jim Lippard alerts us to the Best Nigerian 419 scam ever.

I think he might be right, but the competition isn't that tough.

---

Crime and Punishment

 
True to their ideology, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have introduced another "get tough on crime" bill. This one increases the jail sentences for gang-related killings.

There's only one problem. It won't work. Everyone with an IQ over 100 knows that you can't stop gang violence by just increasing prison terms for the ones who get caught.

Today's Toronto Star has two articles on the topic. The first one, Tory gang approach too little too late: critics, explains the consensus opinion of leading criminologists.

The punitive response may play well to citizens who fear gun battles erupting on city streets. But that get-tough approach lards the Criminal Code with redundant laws that haven't worked in other countries, says criminologist Irvin Waller.

"This is yet again a debate about penalties when it's very clear from looking south of the border that these penalties do not make a lot of difference to the number of people killed," he said.

"It's not a debate about what will actually stop them from happening."

Waller, a professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote the book Less Law, More Order to educate politicians on prevention and smart policing practices that have worked in other countries.

The second article, Critics say more jail time won't help curb violence, goes into more detail about what the experts are saying.

Criminologists predict tough sentences won't be effective in preventing gun and gang violence

Proposals to slap first-degree murder charges and tougher sentences on gangsters and police assailants will have little practical effect on curbing gang crime and gun violence, criminologists and other critics say.

More front-line officers, more intrusive investigative police powers and more resources for crime prevention are needed, they say.

Ross Hastings, director of the Institute for the Prevention of Crime at the University of Ottawa, joins other criminologists in arguing there is no evidence tougher sentences deter criminals, but the "certainty of being caught" is more likely to do so.

Nonetheless, amid an alarming rise in Vancouver's gang violence, politicians of all stripes rushed yesterday to endorse federal proposals to label gang killings first-degree murder offences, and to stiffen jail terms for drive-by or reckless gang-motivated shootings and assaults on police.

All three federal opposition parties promised to fast-track the measures proposed by the Tories.

I'm disappointed in all four political parties. Most of our MP's have IQ's above 100 and they know the rational response to gang violence. They know that this bill will be completely ineffective.

The only reason for supporting it is to pander to voters who don't understand the problem. There are far too many voters whose knee-jerk reaction in the face of any crime is to call for "justice" by increasing jail time. A majority of those voters probably support the Conservatives so there's nothing to be gained by the opposition parties' lack of fortitude.

Shame on Stephen Harper for his (probable) hypocrisy. Shame on Michael Ingatieff, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe for being even more hypocritical. They should know better.

---

Darwin Stamps

 
A few days ago I got a letter from the Royal Mail. It was a complete set of Darwin stamps issued by the Royal Mail in the UK to honour Charles Darwin. You can see some of them on the right. They are stunning. Thank-you Ms. Sandwalk for arranging to have them sent.

I also got a postcard from Kate. She mailed it from London on Darwin's birthday. It was addressed to someone called "The Nutty Professor" but for some strange reason it ended up in my mailbox anyway. Thank-you Kate & Mick.

Great Britain, especially London, was the intellectual capital of the world back in Queen Victoria's time. Most of the world's top scientists were there and the number of scientific advances that came out of that environment was truly amazing.

Much of it was due to the wealth of the British Empire (science loves money) but also to the intellectual freedom, individualism, and entrepreneurship that was characteristic of that society. It was the same society that created the industrial revolution and sustained it for one hundred years.¹

What's amazing is that not only did Victorian England nurture and support men like Charles Darwin but that today, 150 years later, Great Britain is still proud to celebrate the scientist whose name is most closely associated with evolution.

---

1. Eat your heart out, Ken Miller (Only a Theory). :-)

Matt Nisbet Chooses Sides

 
Carl Zimmer has posted another article on the Geroge Will affair [Unchecked Ice: A Saga in Five Chapters]. Recall that George Will made a number of scientifically inaccurate comments in his Washington Post article last week. He defends himself in another column today.

Carl dissects the issue in order to set the record, straight. Any decent science journalist should be concerned about accuracy and I'm pleased that Carl has made an effort to stand up for the truth. The Washington Post takes the brunt of the blame.

What has kept me hooked on this saga is not George Will’s errors. Errors are as common as grass. Some are made out of ignorance, some carefully constructed to give a misleading impression. What has kept me agog is the way the editors at the Washington Post have actually given their stamp of approval on Will’s columns, even claiming to have fact-checked them and seeing no need for a single correction.

Chris Mooney has also attacked the newspaper for it's lack of integrity [George Will Lies; His Editor Does Nothing].

Many of the column's incorrect factual assertions were challenged, and as Will is revisiting the column due to the response it has garnered, it's inconceivable that he doesn't know that. For God's sake, Will claimed that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." That's false. And Will doesn't even address the issue at all in his latest column.

Meanwhile, the Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has made himself look terrible over all this. He should have held Will to the truth and thereby upheld his paper's standards. Instead he tells CJR this:

"It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject -- so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don't make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn't be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him."

All of this is good. It is highly appropriate that science journalists reestablish their credibility by criticizing amateurs who don't know what they're talking about.

Where is Matt Nisbet in all of this? Here's what Nisbet says in In the Clamor Over George Will, Pundits Win But Public Loses.

The same observation currently applies to the clamor over George Will's recent syndicated column on global warming. As I detail in a cover article at the March/April issue of the journal Environment, Will's column is part of a decade-old message playbook on climate change, effectively (and falsely) framing the problem in terms of lingering scientific uncertainty.

The irony of this latest netroots clamor is that dozens of bloggers are just feeding the George Will beast, sustaining and amplifying attention to his false claims about climate science while providing easy cues to the public that the issue can be readily interpreted through the lens of partisanship and ideology. (Sound familiar? As I wrote at Skeptical Inquirer, the same thing happened in the initial response to Ben Stein's anti-evolution doc Expelled.)

The conflict and heat generated not only focuses more attention on Will's preferred uncertainty interpretations, but it also distracts from the narratives and frames that are actually likely to build broad-based support for action. As I note in the Environment article, these frames include an emphasis on the moral and religious imperative to action along with a focus on the public health and energy innovation dimensions of climate change.

Over the past two years, many of us have been pointing out the conflict between "framing" and scientific accuracy. Now Nisbet makes it perfectly clear. If you criticize the scientific accuracy of an article in the main stream media then you might be hurting the cause.

The implication is that you should let scientific errors go unchallenged because challenging them give them credence. The more insidious implication is that scientific inaccuracy may be okay as long as it advances the cause.

It seems to me that Nisbet's view and Chris Mooney's recent claims are not compatible. I look forward to seeing how Mooney replies to Nisbet. Chris has already tried to distance himself from Nisbet last Spring over the Ben Stein affair [see For Once, Chris Mooney Talks Sense].

Internecine framing wars, what could be more fun than that?

---

The Atheist Ad Campaign on The Agenda

 
TV Ontario (TVO) has a daily program called The Agenda with Steve Paikin. It's usually very good.

Last week they had a show on the atheist bus campaign featuring Justin Trottier of the Center for Inquiry and Robert Buckman, a well-known Toronto atheist. Here's the entire show. I don't think any one of the participants is particularly proud of their performance. But see below ....


At one point in the show, the Christian woman, Kathy Shaidle, brings up the "Stalin, the atheist, killed 30 million people (therefore God exists)" argument and Robert Buckman tries to answer in a reasonable manner. He doesn't do a bad job (excerpt below) but Canadian Cynic has a suggestion: What Robert Buckman should have said.

I caution Sandwalk readers that CC's language can be a bit crude ... but it sure is funny.

---

Nobel Laureate: Kary Mullis

 

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993.

"for contributions to the developments of methods within DNA-based chemistry: for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method"


Kary B. Mullis (1944 - ) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the polymerase chain reaction technique. This technique is used to amplify a given stretch of DNA by repeatedly copying it several dozen times. The technique has been honed and modified and it's now a standard tool in every biochemistry and molecular biology laboratory.

Mullis shared the prize with last week's Nobel Laureate, Michael Smith, who developed the technique of in vitro mutagenesis. I'm not a big fan of awarding Nobel Prizes to those who develop a new technique. I'm much more comfortable with awards to scientists who directly advance our understanding of how life works. That's why my personal favorites are Nobel Laureates like Jacques Monod, François Jacob, Ed Lewis, Otto Warburg, Linus Pauling, André Lwoff, Barbara McClintock, and Peter Mitchell (plus many others).

Fortunately, it usually turns out that the winners of "technology" prizes are very good scientists who have also made a significant contribution to advancing our knowledge of fundamental concepts. That's certainly true of Michael Smith, Walter Gilbert, and Fred Sanger, to name just a few.

Kary Mullis was an unusual recipient in many ways. You can get a flavor for his personality by reading his Autobiography and, especially, his Nobel Lecture. There has never been a speech like that in the history of the Nobel Prize and, chances are, there will never be another.

Read about Kary Mullis on Wikipedia to see what he's been up to since he stopped being an active scientist in 1988. By the time he was awarded the Nobel Prize he was concentrating on being a writer. (This might explain the speech!)

Here's the Press Release describing Kary Mullis' contribution.

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

The "Polymerase Chain Reaction" (PCR)

The PCR technique was first presented as recently as 1985 but is nevertheless already one of the most widespread methods of analysing DNA. With PCR it is possible to replicate several million times, in a test tube, an individual DNA segment of a complicated genetic material. Mullis has described how he got the idea for the PCR during a night drive in the Californian mountains. Two short oligonucleotides are synthesized so that they are bound correctly to opposite strands of the DNA segment it is wished to replicate. At the points of contact an added enzyme (DNA polymerase) can start to read off the genetic code and link code words through which two new double strands of DNA are formed. The sample is then heated, which makes the strands separate so that they can be read off again. The procedure is then repeated time after time, doubling at each step the number of copies of the desired DNA segment. Through such repetitive cycles it is possible to obtain millions of copies of the desired DNA segment within a few hours. The procedure is very simple, requiring in theory only a test tube and some heat sources, even though there are now commercial PCR apparatuses that manage the whole procedure automatically and with great precision.


The PCR method can be used for reduplicating a segment of a DNA molecule, e.g. from a blood sample. The procedure is repeated 20-60 times, which can give millions of DNA copies in a few hours.

As has site-directed mutagenesis, the PCR method has decisively improved the outlook for basic research. The sequencing and cloning of genes has been appreciably simplified. PCR has also made Smith's method of site-directed mutagenesis more efficient. Since it is possible with PCR to perform analyses on extremely small amounts of material, it is easy to determine genetic and evolutionary connections between different species. It is very probable that PCR combined with DNA sequencing is going to represent a revolutionary new instrument for studies of the systematics of plant and animal species.

The biomedical applications of the PCR method are already legion. Now that it is possible to discover very small amounts of foreign DNA in an organism, viral and bacterial infections can be diagnosed without the time-consuming culture of microorganisms from patient samples. PCR is now being used, for example, to discover HIV infections. The method can also be exploited to localise the genetic alterations underlying hereditary diseases. Thus PCR, like site-directed mutagenesis, has a great potential within gene therapy. Without the PCR method, the HUGO project, with its objective of determining every single DNA code in, among other things, the human genetic material, would hardly be realistic. In police investigations PCR can give decisive information since it is now possible to analyse the DNA in a single drop of blood or in a hair found at the scene of a crime.

Another fantastic application is that it is possible to mass-produce DNA from fossil remains. Researchers have, for example, succeeded in producing genetic material from insects that have been extinct for more than 20 million years by using the PCR method on DNA extracted from amber. This possibility has already inspired authors of science fiction. The very popular film "Jurassic Park" is about the fear that arises when researchers using PCR recreate extinct giant reptiles.

---

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.

[Photo Credit: Geschichte der PCR]

Congratulations Carl Zimmer

 
It's often said that "real" science journalists are passionate about presenting accurate science [see Chris Mooney].

Strangely, in spite of this passion, they've tended to remain very silent when a major newspaper publishes inaccurate scientific information—at least in the fields I'm interested in.

That changed a little bit with the George Will affair in the past week. George Will is a Pulitzer Roze winning journalist (not a science journalist). He wrote about global climate change in The Washington Post. Apparently there's another piece in the press.

Carl Zimmer takes him on: George Will: Locked In Ice!. Congratulations Carl! This is why you are one of the best science journalists.

---

Teaching the Controversy: Astrology & Genesis

 
Here's how Neil deGrasse Tyson teaches us about astrology. The idea is to get people to realize that astrology is bunk.



My daughter's teacher (with an M.Sc. in chemistry) used this technique on her Grade 5 class. I dare say it did some good in promoting critical thinking.

Why can't we do the same with some other pseudoscience topics, like Young Earth Creationism? Why can't we teach critical thinking by getting young students to think about the consequences of a deluge that wiped out all of humanity in 2600 BC?¹ They could discuss why the Egyptian records failed to notice that every single Egyptian lost their life sometime during the third dynasty when the pyramids were being built. They could do a simple calculation to see how you get from Noah and his family to 45 million people in the Roman Empire. (And possibly 300 million people in the world at about the time when Julius Caesar was born.)

Why can't we do that? Because religion has special protection from this kind of critical analysis. You can attack astrology but you can't attack anything religious no matter how silly it might be.

We should try and change that. Let's have more classroom discussion about the conflict between science and some religious beliefs. The well known seminar by Ricky Gervais (below) shows how you could do it. It should be required viewing in all Grade 5 classrooms!

---

1. They could also think about the kind of God who would do this.

[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist: The Quick Astrology Test]

It's Good to Blog

 
Today's editorial in Nature declares, It's good to blog.

Indeed, researchers would do well to blog more than they do. The experience of journals such as Cell and PLoS ONE, which allow people to comment on papers online, suggests that researchers are very reluctant to engage in such forums. But the blogosphere tends to be less inhibited, and technical discussions there seem likely to increase.

Moreover, there are societal debates that have much to gain from the uncensored voices of researchers. A good blogging website consumes much of the spare time of the one or several fully committed scientists that write and moderate it. But it can make a difference to the quality and integrity of public discussion.

---

[Hat Tip: Chance and Necessity]

Is the bus ad campaign working?

 
The atheist bus campaign is being run and organized by a small group of individuals who have put a lot or work into it. Most of them are members of Freethought Association of Canada whose President is Justin Trottier.

I support the campaign to put atheist ads on city buses for the following reasons.

1. It supports other atheists and encourages them to "come out of the closet" and discuss their atheism openly.
2. It stimulates debate and discussion within our society, often raising questions that many have never seriously considered.
3. For those who get it, it injects a welcome note of humor into a subject that really needs it.

The campaign will be a success if it attracts attention and gets people talking about rationalism and superstition. That discussion has already been kick-started by several best-selling books in the past few years and this ad campaign will keep the discussion going.

Up until recently, atheism was rarely mentioned in the main stream media and atheists were never interviewed on television. All that has changed in recent years and now you can hardly do a story on religion without getting the "other side." That's remarkable progress in a very short period of time. Today, it looks like more that 20% of Canadians are atheists and that number is growing rapidly in spite of what religious leaders might tell you.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. The atheist bus campaign is worried because Global TV calls Atheists ‘Fanatics’?, but that's missing the point. The point is that a show like this would have been unheard of ten years ago. Look at how Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders are now obliged to defend their belief in God.

There's a remarkable segment in this video beginning at 4:30. The head of Toronto's Transit Commission is asked whether the TTC would approve some religious ads written up by the host of the TV show. The TTC head says, "These, would be more than welcome." That's the correct answer. Game on.

---

Atheist bus ads are up and running in Toronto

 
I'm told that buses with the atheist ads are on the streets of Toronto, although I haven't seen one yet. If you spot one, you are asked to take a photo and post it on the official website of the Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign [Photos of the Atheist Bus ads in Toronto].

I'm pleased to report that so far there haven't been any reports of people fainting in the street and crime levels have remained steady in spite of the threat to Toronto's morals.

Meanwhile, the ads have been turned down in Ottawa and Halifax. We're waiting to hear from Calgary. Check atheistbus.ca for the latest updates. While you're there, donate some money to the cause. I gave them $100 and that's just a beginning. The campaign has raised $45,500 so far.

Click on the image below to see the fine print. It says "www.atheistbus.ca This advert was paid for by public donations." I'm really proud of the fact that the Canadian campaign doesn't shy away from using the word "atheist." After all, that's what it's all about.

---

Monday's Molecule #109: Winners!

 
UPDATE: The molecule is the Klenow fragment of E. coli DNA polymerase I. It's the part of the enzyme that's missing the 5′→3′ exonulcease activity. The Nobel Laureate is Kary Mullis, one of the most eccentric scientists ever to win a Nobel Prize—and that's saying a lot because Nobel Laureates are a very unusual group.

The winner is Guy Plunket III from the University of Wisconsin. There was no undergraduate winner this week so I awarded the second prize to Deb McKay, who is currently teaching in a Toronto high school. Her answer wasn't perfect but she offered me a bribe I couldn't refuse.¹

---

Today's molecule is actually two molecules but we only care about the protein. You need to identify this protein, being as specific as possible. A general description of the type of protein won't do because the image clearly show a particular version.

There's are several possible Noble Laureates associated with this molecule. One of them was Michael Smith—last week's Nobel Laureate. The person I'm looking for was never a Professor. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just helps you narrow down the field of possible prize winners.

The first person to identify the molecule and the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: John Bothwell from the Marine Biological Association of the UK, in Plymouth (UK), Wesley Butt of the University of Toronto, David Schuller of Cornell University, Nova Syed of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin and undergraduate Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, and James Fraser of the University of California, Berkeley.

John, David, and Dima have offered to donate their free lunch to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept a free lunch. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you came make it for your free lunch (with a friend).

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 and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) 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. I reserve the right to select multiple winners if several people get it right.

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

---

1. A sneak peek at the new science curriculum for Ontario schools. Were you thinking of something else, perhaps?

Short Term Gains at NIH (USA)

 
Alex Palazzo highlights the shortsightedness of the stimulus package when it comes to NIH funded projects [NIH & the Stimulus in the NY Times].

I agree with him 100%. Science doesn't work that way. We once had that problem in Canada. A temporary increase in funding of the granting agencies lead to compounding the pain of the inevitable budget cut a few years later.

At least Alex won't have to deal with that problem when he arrives in Canada this summer. This time our government avoided the problem by starting with the budget cuts! What a relief not to have to worry about how to spent all those extra dollars....

Thank-you Stephen Harper. And thanks also to our Minister of State (Science and Technology), Gary Goodyear. Dr. (sic) Goodyear (above) is a chiropractor. It's nice to know our science policy is in such good hands.

---

Why We Immunize

 
Normally I don't write about the people who oppose immunizing children. I leave that to Orac and others. There are so many crazy people out there that the average skeptic simply doesn't have time to fight them all.

Here's an article by Jim Macdonald that Orac linked to: Why We Immunize. Everyone should read it.

---

Do You Have Biblical Morals?

 
Oops. I thought for sure I'd do better than PZ Myers.

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.

 

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

Do You Have Biblical Morals?
Take More Quizzes

---

The Future of Science Journalism

 
Chris Mooney warns us that science journalism is in trouble. He notes that many newspapers are firing their science writers and he warns of the dangers [The Death and Strangulation of Science Journalism].

What's disturbing, though, is to see a meta-discussion of the "trouble" with the practitioners of science journalism without any discussion of the real "trouble": the economic realities that are killing them off, one by one.

Memo to scientists: If you don't like science journalists, you're going to like even less what you get once they're gone.

I responded by saying ....

Not to worry. We'll figure out some way to frame it so that it sounds like a good thing!

:-)

Seriously, most of what passes for science journalism is so bad we will be better of without it.

Maybe the general public would have been more interested in science if science journalists hadn't been writing so much hype about "breakthroughs" for the past twenty years. Maybe the public would have been more interested in science if so-called "science" journalists hadn't been confused about the difference between science and technology.

Science isn't about what the latest discoveries can do to make your life better. It's about learning how the natural world actually works. It's all about knowledge and not application or politics.

Science journalists have let us down. I say good riddance.

Now Chris has started a separate thread in order to disucuss this point [Science Journalism: When Things Get Rough, You Find Out Who Your Real Friends Are].

My post last week about the death knell of science journalism prompted some incredible responses. Here's Larry Moran, putting it more bluntly than I expected, and enunciating an opinion we'd better hope does not prevail:

...

Breathtaking, huh? I seriously hope opinions like this are not very widespread in the scientific community.

Well Chris, I hate to tell you this but there are plenty of scientists who share my opinion, even though they may not have put it so bluntly.

And you know what, Chris? You and Matt are partly to blame for this sad state of affairs. I know you don't want to talk about framing because you have "moved on," but your criticism of scientists didn't do a lot to inspire our confidence in science journalism.

But let's move on and look at what you have to say today.

Honestly, based upon the foregoing, I have to question whether Larry Moran knows what a science journalist is--or at least, whether we're talking about the same thing. For it seems to me that virtually everything he's complaining about, a real science journalist would complain about as well.

Take the media slights against science described above--the hyping of "breakthrough" findings, the confusion of science and technology, and the swapping of serious science coverage for "feel good" or "news you can use" infotainment fare. Although you will certainly find exceptions, in general these aren't the fault of dyed-in-the-wool science journalists, of the sort that proudly claim membership in the National Association of Science Writers (as I do). In fact, you can bet that within their respective media organizations--when they still were working within them; most of NASW today is freelance--science journalists have fought against many such calls over the years.

And you can also bet that they frequently lost out in those internal battles.

I don't believe you.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct. Let's assume that most science journalists know full well that science doesn't produce weekly breakthroughs (all evidence to the contrary). Let's assume that most science journalists know the difference between science and technology. Let's assume that what they really want to do is write about how science leads to advances in understanding of the natural world instead of sensationalizing the subject by writing about, .... oh, let's say, "hurricanes, politics, and the battle over global warming."

Even if everything you say is true, the bottom line is that science journalists failed to make their case and were "forced" to do the bidding of senior editors—or whoever it is you blame.

If that's case, why should we support the status quo and stand up for the people who have (according to you) failed to deliver the goods?

The point is that nobody loves science more than science journalists--and nobody more devoutly wishes to see it covered accurately and widely, so that the "general public" thereby benefits, and comes to appreciate science more thoroughly. So how is it that now, a scientist like Larry Moran won't stand up for these science evangelists in the media, and blames them for a host of failings that, in truth, they themselves most assuredly abhor?

I gave you my answer. It's because I don't believe you. Is George Johnson one of your examples? How about Graham Lawton?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that every science journalist is doing a bad job. I've tried hard to pick out the good ones and give them the credit they deserve. What I'm saying is that, from my perspective, the majority of science journalists do not behave in the way you describe. It's all too easy to find articles that get the science wrong and articles that are more hype than reality.

Face the facts Chris, science journalists have not been very successful at finding allies among scientists. There's a very good reason for that. Try reading about the kerfluffle over the New Scientist cover to get a feeling for the problem.

Here's another exercise for anyone who cares about the quality of science journalism, as I do. Read the press releases on ScienceDaily. You won't find very many scientists who are impressed with that kind of science journalism.

---

Monday's Molecule #109

 
Today's molecule is actually two molecules but we only care about the protein. You need to identify this protein, being as specific as possible. A general description of the type of protein won't do because the image clearly show a particular version.

There's are several possible Noble Laureates associated with this molecule. One of them was Michael Smith—last week's Nobel Laureate. The person I'm looking for was never a Professor. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just helps you narrow down the field of possible prize winners.

The first person to identify the molecule and the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: John Bothwell from the Marine Biological Association of the UK, in Plymouth (UK), Wesley Butt of the University of Toronto, David Schuller of Cornell University, Nova Syed of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin and undergraduate Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, and James Fraser of the University of California, Berkeley.

John, David, and Dima have offered to donate their free lunch to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept a free lunch. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you came make it for your free lunch (with a friend).

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 and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) 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. I reserve the right to select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

---

Evolution in The Hamilton Spectator

 
Rama Singh is a Professor in the Department of Biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada). He happens to be the supervisor of Carlo Artieri, who writes Musings of the Mad Biologist.

Carlo noted on his blog (Evolution is a fact, not just theory...) that his boss has just published an article on evolution in the local newspaper. Read it at: Evolution is a fact, not just theory.

I'll quote the subheading and a couple of paragraphs and leave it up to my readers to discuss. Is this a good example of how scientists should explain evolutionary biology to the general public?

The only unproven area is Darwin's natural selection

...

Living organisms, on the other hand, evolve by variational evolution that depends on the survival and reproduction of the "fittest" individuals in the population, which is composed of many genotypes.

Unlike evolution, which is taken as a fact, the theory of natural selection, Darwin's mechanism for evolution, has come under criticism as to whether it is sufficient to explain evolution. In particular, early developmental biologists questioned if natural selection was adequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life.

Yet after 150 years of vigorous research (and many Nobel prizes!), no one has come up with a better theory. In fact, the more scientists have explored biology, the more they have become convinced of the facts of evolution.

Natural selection is a fact of everyday life. Resources are limited, individuals differ in their survival and reproduction, and evolution is a common sense conclusion deduced from facts and reasons. The problem with evolutionary change is that it takes place on such a slow place that we do not see it. However, we can imagine how evolution occurs by looking at the spectacular variety of food plants, flowers and domestic animals that we have produced by using the same principles of genetics and selection that nature uses. We may not witness the origin of species, but we have witnessed species becoming extinct in our own life time.

I'll get the conversation going by pointing out that well before the 150 years Professor Singh mentions in his article, random genetic drift was proposed as a pretty good theory about how evolution can occur. It may not be "better" than natural selection but I think it's good enough to have deserved a mention.

---

"A" for effort

Anyone involved in teaching has heard the sob story. One student works really, really hard in the course but only gets 65% on the final exam. Another student gets 95% without breaking a sweat.

The "C" student thinks this is very unfair. They should get a much higher mark because they put so much effort into the course.

The issue is addressed in the New York Times a few days ago [Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes].

In line with Dean Hogge’s observation are Professor Greenberger’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.

Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.

“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”

“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”

Michelle Cottle has a comment in The New Republic [An A for Effort? Talk About a Lousy Idea]. Now, this isn't a publication that I routinely look to for views that are similar to my own¹ but her comment below pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

No, Jason. What would be wrong is if a university trained its students to believe that they were excellent simply for getting up off their futons and doing what was expected of them. Did the reading? Attended class? Stayed up late working on a paper? Good for you, puppy! Sure, you did a craptastic job on that paper--not to mention the final--suggesting that you have no more than a fourth-grader's grasp of the material. But what the hell!? You worked hard. You showed up--even when you had that reallllly bad hangover. You may not have learned much, but you sure did try. Have a nice fat A. And here's hoping it comes in handy when your first employer fires you for not being able to tell your ass from your elbow when it comes to doing your job.

Sweet Jesus, where did such dizzying nonsense come from? Sure, it's easy to blame today's youth for being whiny, spoiled, and entitled. But the kids had to get these delusional ideas from somewhere. I suspect at least part of the blame lies with all those well-intentioned self-esteem-boosting messages that anxious parents, educators, and coaches feel compelled to spout in this era of making every child feel like a winner all the time. You know, the cheery, you-can-do-it mantras along the lines of, "All that matters is that you tried," "The only way to fail is not to try at all."

Um. No. While I understand the self-defeating doubt that we're trying to short-circuit here, there are, practically speaking, lots of ways to fail--much less fail to get an A. One of those is by not having much of an aptitude for a particular area of study. Not all of us are equipped to be rocket scientists, economists, or playwrights, just as not all of us are equipped to be actors or professional basketball players. If anything, a student who tries really, really, really hard at something and still repeatedly falls short might benefit from realizing that his talents lie elsewhere. (As could the rest of us: Not to state the obvious, but I don't want a brain surgeon who graduated at the top of his class because he had perfect attendance. I want one who is an artist with a scalpel.) Go ahead: Aim for the stars. Don't let anyone tell you you can't do something. But if you actually try that thing and it turns out that you're not so hot at it, don't whine about unfair grading. Acknowledge that you have major room for improvement and decide where to go from there. The sooner kids learn how to deal with failure and move on, the less likely we are to have a bunch of whiny, fragile, self-entitled, poorly qualified adults wandering around wondering why their oh-so-stellar efforts aren't properly appreciated in the real world.

Alternatively, now might be a good time to revisit my dream of becoming a concert pianist. I've never had much of an ear for music, but I bet if I quit my day job and worked at it really, really hard--or at least showed up at all my lessons and did the homework--someone would eventually reward my "excellence."

Hopeful Monster has something to say over on Chance and Necessity [Student effort ≠ high grades].

I want students to recognize that part of what we're testing is innate ability, or intelligence. There's no getting around it. If you are smart and you work hard you are going to get a higher grade than a student who works hard but isn't very smart. It's unfortunate that there are very smart students who don't have to work hard to get an "A," but that's life. What should count in university is how well you understand the material, not how much effort you put in while trying to understand.

By the way, I think that university Professors have to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the current sad state of "higher" education. It's not just the students. We Professors have always had the power to fix the problems but for the most part we have done nothing about it. Many of us have actually contributed to the problems by giving out marks for attendance and allowing "extra" assignments to raise your grade.

---

1. By this, I don't mean to imply that The New York Times is any better.