August 2007 Archives

"Art is What You Can Get Away With." -- Andy Warhol

Scienceblogs', scientist, PZ Myers of Pharyngula, one of the first and most entertaining science bloggers, was recently sued 15 million dollars by Stuart Pivar for Myers' critical review of his book. Myer's 2005 review of the book is here, and an updated review from last month is here. Lawyer Peter Irons wrote a response to Pivar here. Pivar dropped the suit, but until then feverish speculation and analysis prevailed on some blogs. 'It will be dismissed' some said. 'It's groundless' everyone agreed. But there was also unexpected and deafening silences from other corners, as if a cold wind had blown through some warm cozy blogospheric goodness. Some just had no comment. But others asked, what if people start suing individual bloggers?

What if? Would all bloggers just be quiet?? Tell me it's not so. If it weren't Seed, and a famous blogger, would there be any point of a suit? We were left to ponder what the suit was really all about.

When I first tried to search for "Pivar" and "science" it was slim pickings. Did I mean "Pixar", as in Pixar Entertainment? "Picar"? "Piper"? My search terms were wrong, and as it turns out "science" was throwing off the results. Well-known in art and New York Society circles, Pivar's name is often associated with famous people, sometimes deceased -- Andy Warhol, Diana Vreeland, and recently Stephen Jay Gould. He has been featured in popular magazines, in the New York Times "Public Lives" section, and in New York tabloids' "celebrities" sections for over 30 years.

His media coverage has always been impressive. In 1975 Newsweek profiled Pivar curating a show on "Schlock Art" (not an insult in art, apparently). In 1979 he was featured in Time magazine's profile on artists. Then he paid $223,250 for a rare sabre-tooth tiger skull to add to his collection of skeletons and bones. He spent oodles of time and money delving into the provenance of a life sized statue called "Roman Bronze Boy" that may have been fake.

Pivar is often the highest bidder, as the Boston Globe reported from one elephant art auction in 2000: "'This is an excellent painting,'" Pivar exclaimed. "'It's what we call a W.C.M. - a world-class masterpiece.'" (Boston Globe, March 22). He referred to art painted by elephants and a foundation that teaches Asian elephants to paint and sells the proceeds, thereby extending the boundaries of art. The foundation also develops "an affordable line of non-toxic quality paints for use by elephants and caretakers as well as underprivileged children in developing countries".

Writing for the New York Times Claudia Steinberg once interviewed Pivar about his home, his decorating, and collecting (September 9, 2004). '''You need 300 objects to furnish an apartment, just for the record'", Pivar said. Steinberg noted his "'grand tone"', reminiscent of a friend who had "'taught him the effectiveness of pontification.'" He continued the pontification:

"'Every time I see an example of something that is better than what I own, I buy it... otherwise for the rest of my life I have to live with the knowledge that someplace in the world something is floating around that is better than mine, and that's intolerable.'''

Pivar frequently targets various parties to sue and was once called "'an institutional stalker"', by the president of the New York Academy of Art. (The New York Post, June 20, 1998). He's apparently not afraid of provoking a scene. After suing the Academy (which he had founded), one night he showed up at their "Take Home a Nude fundraiser", which the Post explained was "where flesh-filled works donated by students and supportive artists are auctioned off." Unwelcome because of his lawsuit, he was "barred at the door, then thrown down into a puddle", according to the Post article. "'Ass over teakettle'", he said, and his effort landed him in the New York Post. He slapped the Academy with another suit for assault. Then he dropped the suit.

Your 15 Minutes? Again?

Perhaps the decorum he's accustomed to in New York art society differs from that on the internet among scientists? Somehow PZ and Pharyngula figured into Pivar's marketing plan, but beyond trying to attain some vague name recognition, Pivar's efforts are confusing. For someone who pursues fame so relentlessly, who has so many well-connected friends, can't he simply get himself listed on Wikipedia? It seems that this sort of internet play, while surely a low ball bid, might have been easier.

Did he not understand the internet? He certainly must not have looked too closely at the articulate, analytical, opinionated and more than occasionally biting Pharyngula blog. I would certainly think twice before submitting a book for review there. But that's just gauging the landscape. Knowing that Pivar lives with "wallcovering of rose-gold silk brocade", and hundreds of art objects ( NYT, September 9, 2004), I wouldn't solicit his opinion about certain things either; like the design-sense of my blog or my attitudes towards pursuing fame, for starters.

But then again perhaps he was coveting a more cordial reception, like the one Pharyngula gave to Lynn Margulis when Myers hosted her earlier this year. True, Margulis is renowned for cell biology she did 15, 20, 30 or so years ago on endosymbiotic theory. She's earned plenty of street cred -- of the science type, both for her science and writing. But she's also well-known for putting forth "non-traditional" ideas like this:

"In the nerve cell, the axons and the dendrites that make the physical connections that allow us to communicate are latter-day spirochetes. Nerve cells, having long ago discarded the rest of the spirochete body, use the fundamental motility system of spirochetes. Think of the nerve as coming from what had formerly been a bacterium, 'trying' but unable to rotate and swim. Thought involves motility and communication, the connection between remnant spirochetes. All I ask is that we compare human consciousness with spirochete ecology."

You can imagine a simple schematic that suggests the relationship.

"Don't Worry What They Write About You...."

Of course all fame, whether it's in science, art or blogging, demands selective use of charm. When granted the opportunity by Pharyngula for an on-line chat forum, Margulis gamely mastered the medium, tutoring the likes of a participants with handles like "Hairhead" on her theories. But at the same time, being that she's so well-established and somewhat revered, Margulis didn't hesitate to use the opportunity to put forward her harebrained and definitely controversial ideas.

With PZ Myer's moderation, Margulis reiterated her idea that HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, citing in the comments during her online exchange at Pharyngula that a convincing case against HIV viral causality of AIDS was given in a thoroughly refuted and completely infuriating article that Harper's published last year. This article was roundly dismissed by scientists, public health and policy experts, as well as AIDS patients and activists around the world.

If HIV virus did cause AIDS, Margulis persists, than why didn't the CDC respond to her written demand for proof? This feigned helplessness from someone whose tenacity and research skills led her to unearth useful obscure microbiology references from 19th century Russian publications and to question prevailing theories of evolution year after year as she pursued acceptance of her symbiosis theory. This assertion despite CDC's explanation of HIV virus causing AIDS here, and NIH's explanation here.

Reading the Margulis' post on the Myers blog, as well as the chat he hosted, it's hard to tell what would or wouldn't have gotten axed under PZ's "no-trolling" rule. These forums tend to go sideways, especially after a hundred or so comments, and not just because of trolls. With such a wide audience, some people don't know the basic background science, while others get distracted. Following both the thread of comments and the on-line forum transcript sometimes reminded me of trying to watch a parade while a posse of kids fights over some gumdrops that rolled on the ground in front of me. That being the level of the enterprise, Margulis got off lightly on her anti-science AIDS ideas.

It all seemed boring, with a civility that bordered on intellectual stupor. While the subject was promising, Margulis ably chose what she presented and answered. It was certainly not the kind of place where an open exchange could take place, but it was a place where she could get coverage for her particular ideas. Margulis is savvy and used PZ Myers forum well. Pivar, obviously, played his unique hand with Myers differently, with different results.

....Just Measure it in Inches." -- Warhol

Scientists employ well established rules of engagement in academia. There is an old adage that the feuds are intense in academia because the stakes are low, which is only partially true. We generally don't sue fellow scientists -- historically it just didn't make sense because there was nothing to gain -- "I'll confiscate all your test tubes!" It's about intelligence or at the very least creating that image. Equally powerful tools are words, wit, aplomb, and most of all, renown from previous accomplishments -- all of which Margulis employs with rigor.

On balance Margulis seems to relish controversy and certainly slings mud far better than most, a well-honed and essential skill. Years ago she would malign molecular biologists for (generally but not excluded to) being reductionist. Margulis has criticized evolutionary biologists for ignoring chemistry and microbiology in evolution, and chided developmental biologists for not understanding important components of evolution like geology. She refused to talk to journalists because she said they 'always misrepresent' her ideas. Nowadays she decries online sources which she says always distort her theories. Despite her formidable offense skills, she forever portrays herself as someone who has been pushed in a mud puddle.

Scientists' methods of acquiring prestige are not to be underestimated as they can make or break careers and hold scientists and lay audiences in hypnotized sway. Clearly Pivar's background hasn't given him the chance to cultivate these unique science combat skills, I mean if you make a living by being the highest bidder on modern art, and promote art made by elephants with their trunks with a cute acronym like "W.C.M.", for "world class masterpiece", if your highest publicity bid takes the form of a lawsuit, well there's a very different recipe for fame in the science world.

Eccentricity however, is one trait that seems to be leveraged both by art world and the science world. Once you accept how common eccentricity is, cranks and crackpots are just one step removed. When scientists mutter poetry or mismatch socks it merely adds to their aura of mystique. Eccentric? Or crank? Einstein was famously "eccentric". Margulis herself observes how "'it's easy to be dismissed as a "crank" or "on the fringe"'.

Yet unlike the artist who is new to the party, her past publications give her the leeway to remind us of this fact all the time, and so the ghost of Thomas Kuhn lingers in the background, throwing an inkling of doubt on all our rock solid reality-based paradigms. The technique of reminding people how often paradigms are shattered to reveal new truths seems especially effective when used by someone of the slimmest fame like Margulis on non-scientists.

"It may not be Raining. They may be Spitting on Us." -- attributed to Warhol

So if one is a lay-person, how should one tell if the famous scientist knows what they're speaking of? It's tricky. Obviously, if the person doesn't have an established biography in science, it's easy to doubt their credibility. If you're a scientist, should you call out scientists who are more famous than you on tenuous or disproved theories? How does one deal with cranks? PZ might say the Margulis exchange was an open forum, and indeed some people asked very pointed questions. But does the rather warm reception send a mixed message to those who don't know, those who swoon before fame rather than examining each new proposal anew, with equal analysis or skepticism?

It used to be that scientists rarely entered the public forum. They didn't blog, and if they were very famous they only occasionally emerged into the light of day from their labs, personas confused with public awe. In 2000, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote "Geniuses, Crackpots and a Grand Unified Theory", which recounts the rare interactions between scientists and the public, generally when well meaning fans contact scientists to insist that their wacky ideas are worth a Nobel hearing. Margulis herself contends that new-age Gaia people usually misinterpret the science behind her's and Lovelock's ideas.

The NYT article details some funny incidences of "nimble circumlocutions on the parts of legitimate scientists". Some scientists are diplomatic, hoping to encourage people to like science, others tend to be wary, for good reason. There was no internet forum at the time, so most of these interactions took place in person. One former physicist told of a "frightening experience"...

...a man claimed that he had invented bulletproof paint. Sitting in Dr. Moyer's office and clutching a paper bag, the man said ominously that the paint was also resistant to intercontinental ballistic missiles and suggested that Dr. Moyer would want to arrange a test.

The awkward exchanges the author depicts range from dealing with "cosmic theorizers", to engaging "superannuated, formerly fine scientists who late in their careers get bored doing bread-and-butter stuff". The scientists uniformly treated these people with kid gloves:

Once, as [Moyer] was discussing crackpot theorizing with a fellow physicist in his office, his colleague took out a file marked "public relations" that was filled with letters on off-the-wall theories. When Dr. Moyer asked why in the world the folder was so labeled, his colleague explained that the writers sometimes turned up in his office, "and they get really upset if you take out a folder marked 'crackpots.' "

But science bloggers now have unique challenges. They need to do credible publishable science, maintain labs, and teach. Furthermore, we're in a political climate when fear dominates politics, driving people to faith and speculative pie in the sky theories. Don't bloggers have to be somewhat "blunt", just to get an audience? A good many science bloggers want to expose readers to solid science and give them some sort of arsenal to distinguish good from bad. But yet to attract an audience, the medium demands that the blog be frequently entertaining.

Conflict is entertaining, as those who seek fame know. Margulis has mastered this. Pivar also seems to cultivate a combative image in the art world. And certainly PZ is skilled at the use of rhetorical obliteration. It's essentially PZ's PR talk show, therefore, using measures of entertainment value and popular appeal, it all makes perfect sense. Naturally Pharyngula invites Lynn Margulis, a famous scientist who has been more or less spent her career trailed by diaphanous veil of conflict, and he allows questions but warns no "trolls". And Pharyngula agrees to review the self-published book of Stuart Pivar, a famous art collector, and does so in a frank and comedic way. Blog readers will certainly get some bang for their buck.

China got nervous a couple of years ago when their astronaut, Yang Liwei, landed on the Moon and noticed that you actually couldn't see the Great Wall from there, despite what people had assumed since 1938. In general, according to astronauts "the only thing you can see from the Moon is a beautiful sphere, mostly white, some blue and patches of yellow, and every once in a while some green vegetation".

But then astronaut Leroy Chiao used 80mm and 400mm lenses and managed to capture some images. In this photo, NASA adds helpful red arrows which will guide viewers hoping to discern the location of the wall amidst the white and patches of blue. The photo shoots were well received, according to NASA's 2005 account:

"the photos by Chiao, commander and NASA ISS science officer of the 10th Station crew, were greeted with relief and rejoicing by the Chinese. One was displayed prominently in the nation's newspapers. Chiao himself said he didn't see the wall, and wasn't sure if the picture showed it...

In a different set of NASA photos, certain man made features are more well-defined. In these, the east coast of the nation is blanketed in a thick layer of brown pollution. The testament to China's rapid economic progress is quite visible and needs no visual aids to pinpoint.

China has 4 cities that rank in the top 10 cities in the world with the highest air pollution. China's not the only nation whose development efforts are overtaking the environment. India also has four cities in the top 10, and Cairo and Jakarta rank nn the World Bank's top 10 list. However China is hosting the Olympics and therefore is receiving extra pressure from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), in addition to general concerns about its ability to institute environmental measures.

Earlier this year, the China reportedly convinced the World Bank to excise from their report some statistics on the potential ill effects of the high levels of pollution on the health of the population.

"China's State Environmental Protection Agency engineered the removal of the statistics, the Financial Times reported, because the government feared the figures could trigger social unrest."

The New York Times wrote this weekend about China's relentless growth and colossal pollution problem. Although Europe and the United States could pursue development goals for years before bringing their pollution under control, the Times noted that "China is more like a teenage smoker with emphysema."

Last week, for four days, the country imposed alternate odd/even license plate bans on driving in Beijing in order to try to reduce the city's pollution in preparation for the Olympics. The IOC has been wary of the effects of the air pollution on the health of athletes, especially in endurance events like cycling. The four day ban kept levels of particulate at level 2 on China's 5 step scale, which the government declared a success, reasoning that without the ban the air would have been worse.

Just when you thought the profile of the lowly rock pigeon couldn't sink any further. "Experts say" that pigeon guano may have contributed to the Minnesota bridge failure. Apparently the acidic guano corroded and weakened the metal.

With this sort of evidence, can we really continue to lash out at legislators, the governor, tax laws, the war in Iraq, federal deficits, the inspectors, Republicans, distorted taxpayer priorities --or if you happen to be a Rush Limbaugh fan -- labor unions? Sure investigators are still "investigating", but maybe they should just stop that, given this finding.

The abundant city pigeon, known as the rock pigeon or Columba livia, is one of the least favored species. Indeed, humans refer to them derogatorily as "rats with wings". Therefore the promotion of pigeon to scapegoat is brilliant, so much more community oriented than finding lapses in official judgment and blaming politicians.

An exceptional choice to take the fall, this will be like water rolling off a duck's back to the pigeon. They'll just continue on with that jerky red-eyed strut for as long as they live, heads jutting left and right, back and forth, parading across dirty city sidewalks, cooing in the gutters. Politicians may also be oily, but they're human, weak. Therefore they're more susceptible to family stressing repercussions. When civilians who have been bopped over the head with perceived negligence one too many times start to stir, watch politicians leave in droves, tails tucked between their legs. Back to their "families". Not a problem with pigeons. Most people can't even figure out whether they actually have babies or not (squab, if you prefer).

So a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to oust them and suggests "netting to block holes and surfaces, spikes to keep them from landing, and sometimes poisoning, shooting or trapping the birds".

This is what they called a "multi-pronged strategy" to deal with pigeons and their guano, and it's a sublime blend of sport, family fun, and civic duty. Carefully executed, it should be warmly received with rare unilateral support from the state and federal governments, taxpayers, and officials of every stripe. Environmentalists might even be on board. The squinty, awkward pigeon is certainly no round-eyed, fluffy, cute little spotted owl.

Not only could the plan save other bridges imperiled by pigeon guano, it could redeem whole cities. Scientists should think along these lines more often. It's one of those extraordinarily rare "expert" findings that's actually useful to society. Perhaps the levees in New Orleans were weakened by Pelican guano? Oh no wait, that's the state bird...

A couple of days ago Climate Change: Fueling the "Debate", about "balanced" news coverage, Acronym Required commented on an editorial by Clive Crook published by the Financial Times. Quoting an economist who has long denied the causes and effects of global warming, Crook called IPCC report nothing but a product of biased scientists with limited knowledge. The FT article criticized the economic projections made by the committee, and accused the committee in general of ignoring complaints about errors.

Far from acknowledging the point and correcting the projections, the IPCC treated these eminent former civil servants as credentialed troublemakers....the episode was symptomatic of a wider pattern of error (often, in the case of economics, elementary error) and failure to correct it. How can this be possible? The IPCC prides itself on the extent of its network of scientific contributors and on its rigorous peer review. The problem is, although the contributors and peers are impressively numerous, they are drawn from a narrow professional circle.

Moreover, the editorial and its source accused the IPCC of "pervasive bias" and lack of disclosure:

Add to this a sustained reluctance - and sometimes a refusal - to disclose data and methods that would allow results to be replicated. (Disclosure of that sort is common practice these days in leading scholarly journals).

Via Real Climate, in a post that helpfully provides some background, for instance by explaining both the both the IPCC review process and the different academic peer review process, we learn that the IPCC has now released draft and comment information that informed the reports. As the IPCC site says:

The following web page provides links to: the first draft chapters of the WG I report; review comments on the first drafts and corresponding author responses; the second draft chapters; and expert/ government review comments on the second drafts and author responses.

The IPCC information (thousands of pages) should provide even more transparency into the process for the public and scientists. It provides of wealth of information that can be used as anyone sees fit -- for better or worse .

One notion it helps challenge, often propagated by people who set out to deny many valid scientific conclusions, is that scientists are a "lockstep/groupthink community". Such an statement is either made by someone who honestly doesn't know too many scientists or understand the scientific process, or by someone out to distort public perception of science.

The release of draft comments in such a report is unusual, as Real Climate points out, concluding:

..the IPCC is indeed an open and transparent process and there is plenty of criticism from all quarters during the review process and the idea that it is just a closed forum is completely bogus.

Of course the same people will turn around -- as they are sure to following the release of this information, and angrily point out that the scientists "don't agree". But hopefully this new IPCC release will diffuse the influence of those who, capitalizing on a lack of information, have set out to spin false and nefarious tales about the IPCC and its reports.

Voting Machines Hackable

Electronic voting machines are famous for their susceptibility to hacking, as shown by several groups, including Ed Felten and his team at Princeton, who write the Freedom to Tinker blog. The group has repeatedly shown various problems with electronic voting machines. Last fall they published a widely read paper on multiple problems with the Diebold Accuvote-TS, which they also demonstrated in this short video posted at Google.

Last week, following more research on voting machine fallibilities, California's Secretary of State Bowen decertified several voting machines in use in the state and imposed new conditions on the machines based on the findings.

There has been some mixed press about Bowen's move. Most of the press seems positive, however a few reporters focused on the "high costs" of implementing the system. Of course "cost" arguments always cause public hesitation but in the end catch up with us.

Bridges Fallible

"Bridge Disaster Could Mean Gas - Tax Hike", the New York Times warns today, noting that the catastrophe "could tip the scales in favor of billions of dollars in higher gasoline taxes for repairs coast to coast". It probably sent shivers down the backs of politicians and citizens alike, from coast to coast.

Of course, inspectors had warned about the structural integrity of the Minnesota bridge for years. But fortunately the warnings were quieted by an outside bridge review in 2001, under Mr. Elwyn Tinklenberg, former Governor Jesse Ventura's transportation commissioner. Current Governor Tim Pawlenty and the transportation commissioner Helen Molnau, (known as "Ma"), say they "relied on experts" to certify the bridge. They have steadfastly resisted tax increases that would have paid for road improvement.

As levees sink and pipes burst, U.S. infrastructure grades fall to C's and D's. Environmental waste clean up "costs", as does implementation of carbon regulation or taking the bus. Education costs are exorbitant too.

And Democracy's Costs So Malleable

But interestingly driving an SUV -- this site we previously linked to guesstimates that about 30% of the cars in NYC are SUVs -- doesn't "cost" too much even though gas is $3.00-4.00 per gallon. Almost any city budget can accommodate a new baseball stadium, lobbying groups spare no cost in attaining 30 second spots promoting their measures, and politicians spare no cost at getting elected.

But it seems like venturing down a dark path to suggest that a certifiably honest and accurate voting system costs too much. Doesn't this cheapen our vote, or even suggest perhaps, with twisted logic, that our votes can be bought?

-----------------------------------------

Acronym Required posts regularly on government spending dilemmas, especially with regard to the federal role in oversight (for instance with health issues), and less frequently public infrastructure.

Yesterday, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick expressed more indignation about the FISA vote last weekend, questioning the Democrats who voted for the bill:

With this FISA vote, the Democrats have compromised the investigation into the U.S. attorney scandal. They've shown themselves either to be participating in an empty political witch hunt or curiously willing to surrender our civil liberties to someone who has shown - time and again --that he cannot be trusted to safeguard them. The image of Democrats hypocritically berating the attorney general with fingers crossed behind their backs is ultimately no less appalling than an attorney general swearing to uphold the Constitution with fingers crossed behind his own.

Reason magazine also reasonably pointed out that Attorney General Gonzales once excused his own legal transgressions, because:

"the administration had to violate FISA because a Republican-controlled Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would not have agreed to the changes that a Democrat=controlled Congress has approved by a comfortable margin six years later"

The Republicans didn't have to be so sneaky all this time because, really, no one cares? Bloggers all over the internet urge you to barrage your representative -- the one who voted to further increase executive power and wiretapping -- for answers.

--------------------------------

Acronym Required also wrote about CALEA.

--------------------------------

Older, somewhat related, worthwhile, thoughtful entertainment: "The Lives of Others", and "Kremlin, Inc."

Strikes Again

The UK is struggling to contain their foot-and-mouth outbreak and understand its origin. The contagious disease infects cloven-hoofed animals like sheep, cattle, and pigs. In the last week two Surrey farms in UK have had to severely cull their cattle herds.

Countries are vigilant about keeping foot-and-mouth at bay, but the threat is always real and well appreciated, not necessarily by city-dwellers and supermarket shoppers, but definitely in agricultural and government circles. In rural areas you're likely to hear or read about 'such and such disease', which is "the foot-and-mouth disease" of apples/pears/elm/fish, etc.

Maintaining your status as a foot-and-mouth disease free country is critical to agricultural exports. Countries like Australia and New Zealand brag that they haven't had the virus in centuries. New Zealand actually claims they've "never had an outbreak". But had they contained an outbreak, it might be in their best interest not to speak of it. The Australian Department of Agriculture carries a general warning about severe consequences of an (unspecified) FMD outbreak on their website.

• "$8 million (Australian) per day cost in control and eradication costs alone (not taking into consideration the effects of the immediate loss of wool, meat and dairy product markets)."
• "$8 billion dollars out of $12 billion dollars worth of agricultural production being lost in the first year"
• "the loss of 20 000 to 25 000 jobs"
• "average cost to each farmer $70 000 in lost income"

The UK's latest outbreak was preceded by one in 2001 and another in 1967. The outbreak that started in England in February, 2001, lasted through October. News of it was finally eclipsed by 9-11. It cost the nation in the range of 8 billion pounds in compensation.

When Argentina edged towards ridding their herds of foot-and-mouth in the 1990's, newspaper stories in Australia warned of the potential economic impact on Australia's impending beef exports. Newspapers in various countries routinely trot out warnings about how feral pigs, wild animals, and domesticated imports from other countries are a threat to national agriculture.

People have also been accused of using the threat of FMD disease for extortion. Others rumor that governments consider the use of FMD by terrorists and that Russia and the US prepared for possible FMD bioterrorism perpetrated by one another during the Cold War.

Airborne, Waterborne, or Traipsed In?

Researchers who modeled the UK 1967 and 2001 outbreaks suggest that both of these were started by airborne virus. Researchers in the UK been studying the dynamics of airborne infection to better prevent and manage outbreaks. The Institute for Animal Health in Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, UK, published an article last month reporting on the susceptibility of sheep exposed to airborne foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) strain O/UKG/2001. (Veterinary Journal, July 11). Other authors, R. Sellers and J. Gloster, of the same institute, reviewed the literature and found that exposure from different strains, in different species and individuals, along different infection routes varied the rate of infection (Veterinary Journal, May 15, 2007), with cattle being the most susceptible to infection, followed by pigs and sheep.Meteorological conditions and droplet features, less well known dynamics, may also contribute to infection.

The virus tagged for this outbreak is O1BFS67, similiar to the 1967 strain. It was being produced at two facilities, the Institute for Animal Health (IAH) and Merial Animal Health Ltd (Merial) -- Merial is the lab investigators from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA are focusing on. As opposed to the 1967 and 2001 cases, the Health and Safety Commission are focused not on the airborne route, but the water or clothing route of infection. There is a stream running between the two infected farms and the organization is investigating the possibility of surface water might be a factor however investigators doubt that run-off could have caused the disease.

Instead, they say "release by human movement must also be considered a real possibility. Further investigation of the above issues is required and is being urgently pursued." The Guardian reports that a worker from Merial has an "allotment" (small leased vegetable garden?) near one of the farms.

Vaccines are being developed. Animals are forbidden from being transported. Woking, Surrey has a public notice out asking people to report any stray dogs they see. The UAE, China, Russia, South Africa, the EU and the US have banned imports of cloven-hoofed animals from the UK. And Prime Minister Gordon Brown has apparently returned to Downing Street from Chequers (not reading The Pet Goat) to chair meetings of Cobra, the Civil Contigencies Committee, according to the Guardian.

Newsweek Now Decides Climate Change is Real

The title of Newsweek's current article, "The Global Warming Hoax", makes one wonder if Newsweek is still playing to appease all audiences. Its provocative title and cover photo with a giant burning sun seems to fuel the fire for debate. Inside, Sharon Begley coolly focuses on the deception of climate change deniers, who she says are still running amok:

"....outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle -- and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."

In the clear 4000+ word article, Begley profiles the cabal of naysayers', who say, alternatively, that global warming is false, unproven or unimportant. Featured are the usual suspects, ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, James Inhofe, Fred Singer, and Richard S. Lindzen. The article is well worth reading if you haven't heard the news, want to read about it again, or if you went out and bought a Hummer after reading Richard S. Lindzen's own 1000 word opinion in Newsweek last April: "Learning to Live With Global Warming, Why So Gloomy?":

"There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators -- and many scientists -- seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes...Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now..."

Earlier this year, to be fair, Newsweek also published an article on the Union of Concerned Scientist's report on ExxonMobil's lobbying campaign.

The 50% Solution

It's not clear whether Newsweek's "balanced" coverage is in deference to its readers or its advertisers or both. This newest article comes at a time when ExxonMobil itself acknowledges climate change. "With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation"

To Begley's point, the deniers thrive and now have been invited to the negotiating table, and those media outlets that broadcast them also apparently thrive. The Financial Times featured an editorial last week, "The Steamrollers of Climate Science", by Clive Crook arguing that the IPCC and its reports were tainted by "pervasive bias"..

He acknowledged that it was written by numerous scientists, but wrote as if the IPCC was actually just Ian, Paul, Chuck and Cliff. He recommended that "if governments are to get the best advice, they need information and analysis from an open and disinterested source". Who did he have in mind? He quoted the opinions of David Henderson, affiliated with the Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) (all funded by ExxonMobil). Today, the Financial Times published two letters to the editor, one in complete agreement with, one disagreeing with his editorial. The rote, 50% solution.

Oil in The Melting (Shhhh!) Arctic

However the libertarians ought to be experiencing enough cognitive dissonance to compete with the "wind-induced"mechanical resonance that brought down the Tacoma-Narrows bridge in 1940. Russia planted a flag in the Arctic last week, staking out future Gazprom profits, accessible with the melting waterway and the capital of foreign oil companies.

The Financial Times reported on various companies and countries chances of competing for oil , in the short article: "Arctic Ice":

"in a dreadful circularity, global warming, helped along by the burning of fossil fuels, is causing the Arctic's ice sheet to recede -- making any oil and gas there easier to access.

"How much truth is there to the dire warnings of melting polar ice caps"?, asks the German newspaper Spiegel, in the beginning of it's report about The French Oil Company Total, which is sponsoring an explorer to the artic. The explorers' stated purpose is to "measure the arctic melt" (and perhaps to send back pristine images for public relations efforts). Total is also working with Gazprom on Russian gas reserves in the arctic. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States currently claim parts of the North Pole.

The Heritage Foundation noted that "a quarter of the world's oil", may be under the caps, and "if the ice caps melt and shrink", the newly available resources will fuel foreign "tension".

Is global warming real? No it's not, say deniers, but whoever gets to the Arctic and oil as the ice melts wins. If you're crazy-dizzy snapping your head around to follow first the one side, than the other, simply follow the money for the truth. Or do we know the truth and just want to drive around in our SUV's a while longer?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Acronym Required previously posted about climate change with:
"Cars, Buying Cognitive Dissonance"
"Green Spirit"
Communicating Climate Change
"Sea Change or Littoral Disaster"

We recently noticed the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) site for kids. We don't know when the kids site launched, but how could anyone consider preparing for or managing a disaster without "Herman, the spokescrab"?

The bright yellow site, I would say, is geared towards kids 2-25. Activities range from downloadable songs and coloring pages, to a "Hidden Treasures Activity", on the kids ready.gov site. There's Julia and Robbie: The Disaster Twins stories, and if you're ambitious, a "FEMA Careers for Kids Site".

The Kids Activity Survival Kit provides a list of items to pack in a disaster such as crayons, a "keep safe" box with "items that make you feel special", a puzzle, books, pictures of "the family and pet". and action figures:

"small people figures and play vehicles that you can use to play out what is happening during your disaster -- such as ambulance, fire truck, helicopter, dump truck, police car, small boats."

Maybe you can make life preservers for them and float them down the river. No, hopefully your action reenactment will play out what is actually happening during "your disaster". Action figures can be handy in a disaster.

----------------------------------------

Acronym Required previously wrote about FEMA after Hurricane Katrina, here and here and here, and last February, here.

Murdoch -- Scarred by Chapter Books?

The Wall Street Journal -- sold to the only bidder. Finally the most obvious outcome arrives after months of drama and teeth gnashing. The Bancrofts apparently hadn't had a family member on the board since 1932, and by all accounts were "hands off" owners, busy with horses, aviation and other pursuits. Cashing out, with the appropriate level of public contemplation, was a clear-cut opportunity.

People are concerned about the outcome of the sale. Their's is reasonable consternation. The New York Post is a freak show, with it's distorted portraits lurching out at you from the newsstands, fear-mongering headlines battling for your attention. This week's issue features a story "The Tragic Madness of King George" -- about George Steinbrenner, of course -- subtitled "Babbling Boss 'Shocks' Pal". I'm surprised they let the "g" stay in "babbling". The Post is world of "Pals", "Cops", "Hubbies", "60 Second" interviews, chases where the "cops" generally prevail, along with riveting human interest tales like "Castrated Dad was 'Monster'. Will the editorial page views of the Wall Street Journal change, people ask? Hmmm...doubtful?...but fair enough....

Hopefully all readers aren't getting their news from the editorial pages, if so it's a sunk cause. But there's obvious confusion, especially given the hopeful to and fro about an independent board, that led the publisher to clarify in his "Report to the Readers", earlier this week:

"...some of the concerns raised about the acquisition have been illegitimate -- and could wrongly impugn the Journal. One is the notion that somehow ownership could be separated from control."

There you have it, people do indeed acquire things to control them, that's "biz".

Shorter Articles for Our Shorter Attention Spans

I'm aware of people's attentions spans in the world of the blog, in fact, I'm quite sure only a few people have read to this point in this article. It is with this understanding that I say that my prediction that the WSJ articles, especially investigative pieces, will get shorter. Not to mention that Murdoch said as much himself when he spoke about some of his ideas for his impending acquisition in a conversation with the New York Times a couple of months ago. He said he had a hard time understanding some of the technology articles. He also expressed his distaste for longer articles: "'I'm sometimes frustrated by the long stories'", he told paper, noting that he '"rarely" finishes' them.

That Murdoch can't finish his articles is as heartbreaking as watching a toddler pick all the green things off her highchair tray and hurl them onto the floor. Indeed it was Murdoch's "unfinished" bits, I'm sure, that most interested us. We noted this in Coke, Teaching the World to Sing (June 7, 2005).

"The Wall Street Journal article takes an interesting approach in its article ["How a Global Web of Activists Gives Coke Problems in India",Steve Stecklow, June 7, 2005]. The intended audience seems to be the corporate world, when the author writes about exaggerations made by exuberant NGOs (Non-Government Organizations). The Wall Street Journal informs readers in the second paragraph that Mr. Srivasta is a "pony-tailed, 39-year old college dropout."

However turning off the front page, you learn that the Wall Street Journal visited the bottling company in Kerala where Coke was accused of dumping toxic waste and found that required soil sample testing was not routinely done. As well, reporters found that while the Coca-Cola corporate website virtuously announced the results of a study that purportedly found a Kerala plant's waste material not hazardous, but that other independent studies concluded the opposite...."

It's exactly these stories that we devour, as they elucidate the complexities of issues, or at least pique our interest and stimulate further research. It's not a rule, but some of the most distorted news spews forth from short pithy sound bites, as on the FOX news network or in other Murdoch publications.

The "Old" WSJ?

Most people don't think of the Wall Street Journal as focusing on public health or environment issues, but we wrote quite a few stories over the past few years referencing Wall Street Journal articles, on diverse subjects, such as:

• Endocrine disruptors, particularly bisphenol-A found in plastics: ("Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC")
• The oil spillage after Hurricane Katrina: (The Environment & Katrina - Slick Oil Fallout")
• Polyheme, a blood substitute product, and clinical trials being conducted by Northfield Laboratories, (Polyheme and The Newest Plastic Bracelet), and it's competing product, Hemopure (Polyheme & Hemopure: Life Savers? Products to Die For?")
• Autism research conducted by economists (Autism Research Revisted")
• The TXU buyout by KKR (TXU - Greenmail?")
• Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) (The Companions of Mad Cows")
• CocaCola's manufacturing practices in India, especially related to pesticides and water use: (Coke, Teaching the World to Sing)
• IT project challenges in healthcare ("Kaiser IT: Whistleblowing in Internet Time")
• Potential encroachment of academic publishing by online, open source journals ("Accessible Research For All, By All- The Government, State, Universities and NGO's")

Some of the WSJ articles were extensive, like Peter Waldman's article on endocrine disruptors (one of a series). Others brought national attention to important issues, such as Thomas Burton's articles on Northfield Laboratories' clinical trials. A few were pure blog fodder, as may more often be the case in the future.

It's Not His Fault

As disappointing as this seems, the trend towards shorter enlivened content preceded Murdoch's incursion. Last January, the WSJ publisher L. Gordon Crovitz, announced changes to the paper that he called, "the first newspaper rethought for today's needs".

"..This includes more interpretation, analysis and context -- more focus on what the rush of news truly means....As Managing Editor Paul Steiger puts it, today perhaps a bit over half of our news space is devoted to exclusive, differentiated information and the rest to essentially what happened the day before. Our goal is to move to 80% exclusive news, with 20% making sure you're aware of the key developments of the previous day. ...Expect to see more forward-leaning coverage, with headlines featuring predictive and explanatory words like "will" and "means" and "why."

This is a more straight-forward admission than the crafty FOX News claim: "We Report, You Decide". The WSJ slant is obviously familiar to us. As Gordon Crowitz stated in his latest, "A Report to Our Readers", two days ago: "Opinions represent only the applicable publication's own editorial philosophies centered around the core principle of "free people and free markets".

Supporting free market ideology isn't new. It's "forward-leaning". Not to be confused with "right-leaning", or "left-leaning", but definitely, positively pro-business. Although FOX and other Murdoch publications broadcast far-right Republican political agendas, Democrats are also "forward-leaning" and pro-business -- albeit more supportive of government regulation and socially liberal values. Remember, Murdoch supports Hilary Clinton. Harper-Collins, owned by Murdoch, published John Edward's last book and provided hefty advances to the now indignant candidate.

News to Hypnotize the Masses - and No Democrat Left Behind

The WSJ also changed the format of the paper last January, because a businessman wrote in and said that when he flew first class, he would knock over his fellow passengers' orange juice, thus... "an easier-to-handle size, to a more standard width" -- New York Post-like. All the better to capture those can't miss opinions about what it all the days events mean. It's unfortunate that the first class businessmen are apparently too distracted to sort out their own opinions.

Hopefully the new Journal will continue providing a certain depth of coverage. If not maybe the analysis and opinions the editors feed to readers will help this broad new population alleviate what The Atlantic last month labeled "Cognitive Dissonance".

The Atlantic proposes a phenomenon where "rational voters", who watch certain cable stations, that feature news about the late Nicole Simpson, for instance, but not than the Iraq War, are dulled by the assuaging effect of the biased news for simpletons. As a result of the networks manufactured lack of concern, say about the Iraq war, these people are prone to support obviously failing government policies, like the war. Why did so many people re-elect Bush when his record was so bad, the article asks? Given the mass audience of WSJ readers, and the potential for the content to spiral south, The Atlantic presents an uncomfortable notion.

But maybe there aren't any "rational voters" anyway. An alternative theory is that maybe the WSJ readers aren't innocent lambs bound for a future shearing. They're self-interested voters, free market adherents both Democrat and Republican, who Murdoch has found corralled together reading the Wall Street Journal. They have already asked for and received WSJ publication changes that trend towards his 'ideals'. Perhaps he increases his personal power by adding Democrats to his audience, which coincidentally benefits his bottom line. So what, we'll ask impudently? Isn't that an accomplishment that all free-market thinkers should applaud?

Science is Not Science

"Now science is science, and we cannot blame the researchers for the way their data crunched."

This statement was perhaps a rhetorical flourish in "Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet", which was an amusing editorial in the NYT about a widely publicized obesity study that was also the subject of our own airy post, "Fat Cooties", last week. It may have been no more than a blithe segue within lighthearted commentary about a light-weight study. So in that sense, aptly amused, we should maybe just move on to the next thing. But wait. Outside of the context of this editorial and this study, too many people understand science exactly this way. They would take the author's statement as a description of science and scientists.

The title of the NYT article refers to the other study that the media focused on last week, something about a cat and people dying -- another FOX worthy story. But the title was also apropos of Carl Sandburg's poem "Fog": "The fog creeps in on little cat feet..." The media (as in major news outlets like CNN and FOX, and hundreds of small town local newspapers) create a fog around science so that no one can discern why science is important or what research is relevant. Faith in this idea that "science is science", erodes understanding of science, because no, science is not science.

Obviously, few would disagree that the subject of electrical engineering is different than the subject of mechanical engineering - both EE's and ME's would readily point this out, and that the subject of physics is different than biology, and that biochemistry is different than embryology. The scientific method is intact across the fields, but the tools employed by the scientists are certainly different in different areas, as are premises, standards, assumptions and politics of the education, practice and expertise required for each discipline.

In addition to subject to subject differences, and unique methods, techniques and equipment, research differs between scientists of the same discipline. It differs experiment to experiment for the same researcher. Given consistent results, some research advances are obviously momentous, while the importance of others is not so obvious. Those working in the exact field may understand the significance of a particular experiment that other scientists, not to mention journalists and non-scientists, don't.

There's Vapid Vamping Vacant Science

On top of the difficulty assessing research, the media often focuses attention on research studies that don't necessarily merit attention but insist on it via slick advertising. The research serves as publicity, as a bright accessory to a certain institution or researcher.

Real science competes badly with banal reports of young actresses, wobbly dolls who perhaps aren't really humans at all but media concoctions confected to reflect back our own collective wisdom and will, qualities that seem to be disconcertingly drifting downhill. The media needs eyes on all stories for advertising dollars though, so scientists obligingly drum up science that competes. But science that is published because it slips down gullets easily and requires nothing of society except lurid, fleeting fascination, may not really be 'science that is science' at all.

The actresses paraded before us may just be apparitions, helpless malnourished lushes wafting about on clouds of narcotic narcissism, money like confetti, fluttering about their skinny legs, forever vamping, vacant, well-mascara'd eyes. Scientists, however, are probably not yet the passive actors that the author of "Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet" represents. They are protagonists whose actions culminate in "how their data crunched".

The data does not crunch. The scientists crunch the data, after they develop a hypothesis, conceive the study, request the funding, collect the data sets, devise the statistical methods, and interpret the results. They then choose to write up the study and argue the significance of their conclusions in the paper's discussion, as well as (as is the trend), for the public affairs cameras. Therefore when the NYT author says, hopefully jokingly, "Stop sending these guys angry e-mails, people", because it's not their fault", understand that the research really is their "fault", or at least their product.

:.Stupid Science --->Stupid People

There are those that argue that science needs to be simplified for the public. They point disparagingly to stories about movie stars and bemoan the fact that Lindsay Lohan holds more sway in the news than science. Carefully crafted rhetoric and simplified science stories by scientists, they say, would sway people. I don't agree. I believe it's arrogant to judge people's disinterest as stupidity, and to suggest that scientists should be deciding policy and weaving it into their accounts of research.

Science as it is presented in the mainstream media (so many journals are subscriptions inaccessible to the general public) is simplified quite enough, thank you very much. If you were to get all your science news from the mainstream press you might think that the only definitive science research was on the subjects of chocolate, red wine, and obesity. A democracy works because people inform themselves of the issues. The public often seems to be in a fog about science, which may be for many reasons. One reason is that a lot science that we should be exposed to is passed over, while vapid reports posing as science are presented as news.