Recently in Higher Education Category

Charlie Rose concluded a thirteen part series on science earlier this week, with another interesting episode, "The Imperative of Science". Sharing his table were Paul Nurse, who shared the Nobel Prize of Physiology or Medicine in 2001 and is currently President of Rockefeller University; Bruce Alberts, a biochemist, author of texts like the definitive Molecular Biology of the Cell, former two time president of the National Academy of Sciences and Editor-in-chief of the journal Science; Lisa Randall, Harvard particle physicist and author; physicist Shirley Ann Jackson who is the President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; and Harold Varmus, who shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, headed the NIH through a heady science period and is now the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The focus was the importance of science and it naturally was an interesting, convivial, and lively, if general, discussion.

The group said that the US has become complacent about its long time position as a world leader in science and that increased global competition in science demands decisive action if the country is to maintain its status. The participants emphasized the need for better science education. Alberts brought up primary and secondary education, and they all discussed the importance of improving college curricula. They stressed that appreciation of the scientific process and experimentation should be a more central part of liberal arts education, and that all students, not just those who show great promise to be scientists, should learn and experiment at science.

Thinking scientifically is not only important to understanding science, these leaders pointed out, but to processing of all complex problems; the goal is not only to resist "the dogma of talk radio" but to be an active participant in democracy. (they ran with the science is democracy idea)

They all nodded, agreeing with one scientist who crisis in science to a frog sitting in the pot of water as the heat gets turned up. According to this allegory a frog that sits in cold water will stay and perish when the temperature is raised (by some demented frog torturer). When I heard this I applied the critical thinking and research skills that only scientific training can hone, and learned that the frog tale is an urban myth. The good news is that apparently frogs save themselves rather than fatally habituating to hot water -- though to be honest, mine is second hand information. Apart from urban myths, the urgency for science in America is real, as is the human tendency to disastrously ignore problems that creep up on us.

The group discussed various ways to reinvigorate American science as was done with focus and enterprise after Sputnik. Perhaps a problem like global warming could rouse national science spirit, they said. (Coincidentally, Al Gore applied the frog allegory to this problem in An Inconvenient Truth)

The scientists expressed nervous concern that our leaders be able to "connect the dots". A president needs to lead the nation to an understanding of science's central place in society and needs to focus attention on fundamentals like education and funding in order to assure both the nation's preeminence in science and increased public understanding of science. Politicians need to support science in a broad cross-disciplinary way, they said. The goal should not be to tackle a series of individual problems but to recognize the commonalities across disciplines and build a foundation upon which science progress thrives with long-term bipartisan support.

Rose asked whether there was enough interest in science among voters to warrant a presidential science debate, adding ""voters are there if you can get on the right side of it". The scientists righted course, expressing incredulity that there weren't already strong public science platforms, and supporting a debate to reassure Democrat and Republican voters of candidates' commitments to national competitiveness via science.

Here's the link to watch/listen to the video its entirety.

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

The New York Times highlights the potential of online science courses in "At 71, Physics Professor Is a Web Star". At MIT's famous online course site, physics professor Walter H. G. Lewin explains concepts like momentum, the conservation of energy, and the refraction of light. His presentations apparently have wide appeal to both in-class and long-distance students -- physics teacher in India, a student in Iraq, and a florist in San Diego.

The professor says he enjoys teaching introductory classes because "what really counts is to make them love physics, to make them love science." He's apparently very successful. He's also thoughtful about presentation. The Times says Lewin spends "25 hours preparing each new lecture, choreographing every detail and stripping out every extra sentence".

Why aren't there more women in science? It's a dilemma that receives a lot of attention. There's more than a few ways of looking at this, but reading about the subject, you will first be convinced of a long history of women's contributions to science, for example at the website: "4000 Years of Women in Science". You'll also learn that throughout the millennia, women succeeded as scientists. You can find evidence of this in accounts such as, "Women in Science: A Selection of 16 Significant Contributors". 16 contributors, 4000 years, that's distorted. But if you're interested in seeing women get ahead in science, as an educator or young scientist, the real odds still might send you into a morose spiral, worsened when you realize how relentless the message will be. Year after year the same grants announcing the same basic questions, the same studies launched to puzzle quizzically over the same conundrum, ending up with the same conclusion.

Getting more personal, you could delve into biographies of women, classics of famous scientists like Barbara McClintock, and Rita Levi-Montalcini are readily available. Born in the beginning of the 20th century, these two women are/were (McClintock passed away in 1992) highly intelligent, tenacious and gutsy. Barbara McClintock discovered transposable elements that can introduce DNA into distant parts of the genome in certain conditions. Levi-Montalcini discovered nerve-growth factor. Both received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.The biographies tell of singularly driven individuals who labored deep into the night, who made tremendous contributions to science under conditions we would consider adverse.

If you were going to write a book, you might not consider a biography in this genre, one that tells some variation, some essence, of an American dream, of woman scientists renowned for their 20th century contributions and work ethics. However, "A Feeling for the Organism", Barbara McClintock's biography that was first published in 1984, has now been released in its 10th edition. These are timeless classics, and in their characterizations of women at the bench, struggling with firmed jaw against the odds and naysayers, carry a disconcerting longevity. It's almost ominous, as though these mythical struggling women scientists forever hover about our schools, presented this year and the next by earnest teachers in our classrooms as grim reminders of past struggles. Their ghosts might haunt women in their labs...work later?...um...what would Barbara McClintock do?

It seems that in many areas of public life we are afflicted by memory failures about history that are the bane of international relations, public policy, and banking. But as far as women and science goes, there's almost too much history, an endless recounting of a dark time in not so long ago in never forgotten past. According to the AAAS Benchmarks for science education, by the time a student graduates from 8th grade, they should have internalized the following:

"Until recently, women and racial minorities, because of restrictions on their education and employment opportunities, were essentially left out of much of the formal work of the science establishment; the remarkable few who overcame those obstacles were even then likely to have their work disregarded by the science establishment."[italics added]

The AAAS "benchmarks" were updated in 1993, but are still listed on the site as current. The astute 8th grader might deduce from the evidence as presented in the "benchmarks" that nothing has changed for women in science in her own lifetime -- since 1993. The present 8th grader might wonder what the AAAS means by "recently"? Before I was born she might wonder? An ancient time, like 1992? Or are we talking 1960,1940, or when Levi-Montalcini was born in 1909? Can the AAAS update this to give a date when they think things actually turned around? Or are women in science forever just about to turn the corner of milk and honey and equal opportunity?

Teachers are advised to let make their students understand by leaving 8th grade that "no matter who does science and mathematics or invents things, or when or where they do it, the knowledge and technology that result can eventually become available to everyone in the world." Which I suppose could mean that if you do science, no matter who you are, everyone in the world will recognize your work. Alternatively it could mean that if your don't go into science, you would still be able to access it even if you live in a remote village in Africa. A democratic interpretation either way.

You'll see articles that make it look like things are looking up. Nature last week reported in "Equal pay for women in science is achievable" about a study for the University of Arizona Hospital. (Originally published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine: A. L. Wright et al. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 22, 1398 - 1402; 2007). The U. or A. researchers recounted "administrative changes" at the University of Arizona that equalized pay between men and women and improved upon their previous study: "Unequal Pay for Equal Work in the Annals of Medicine (2005). The first study found that in 2000, the University had a total of 375 staff, men were getting paid $117,598, and women only $105,148, 89.4% of the male total. The new paper reports that by 2004, the University had 445 staff, men were paid $132,770, and women $124,108, 93.5% of the male total. To achieve this, the University gave 21 women raises of an average $17,000 over 4 years. The authors concluded: "This study shows that gender disparities in compensation can be reduced through careful documentation, identification of comparable individuals paid different salaries, and commitment from leadership to hold the appropriate person accountable."

A cynical person might say that transforming basic cost of living allowance into gestures of grand social reform, then parlaying these into an academic publication is probably a helpful recruiting tool for the University of Arizona. And though pay raises always help, a more thorough review of the study doesn't necessarily reveal all you would need to know to feel that the changes were meaningful, or that women will be any more emancipated from the U or A's magnanimous effort. Is 4% more pay equality really such an achievement? It's 2007, after all.

Moreover, academic science and engineering still suffer from inequality. Almost any month, one could find a study on this, this month we can report on a hearing before the House Committee on Science and Technology on Women in Academic Science and Engineering , which happened October 17th. The committee adjoined to hear from university presidents and woman administrators about the state of women in science. According to a 2003 NSF study, women at that time only held 28 percent of all full-time science and engineering faculty positions,18 percent of full professors, 31 percent of associate professors and 40 percent of assistant professors.

During the hearings college presidents including Donna Shalala (President U. Miami), and Dr. Kathie L Olsen (Deputy Director National Science Foundation) testified on the Report of The National Academies: Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the potential of Women in Science and Engineering. According to their accounts women still face "significant barriers in every field of science and engineering", including bias, barriers to promotion, cultural barriers, institutional barriers to women's success, disparities in professional assessments and rewards, difficulty in achieving a balance between work and family and even lingering discrimination. The women who reported to the committee also report some progress, but most was in undergraduate education. Any major University should be able to reach into it's pocket and pull out a couple of dollars to achieve equal pay. But what about these challenges?

Yet science work can be rewarding and women continue to enter science, despite a plethora of other opportunities. So young women are counseled not to lose hope. Despite AAAS's firm reminders of "recent" history, and despite evidence that some of that history still lingers, the "benchmark" recommendations are upbeat on science careers for kids: "Above all, children in early adolescence need to see science and science-related careers as a real option for themselves personally."

Did I Say That?

James Watson is at it again. His "opinions", bigoted remarks, racial slurs, were published in a piece in the London Sunday Times. This time he noted that although "social policies are based" on Africa's intelligence being "the same as ours", this assumption is "not really" true. The London's Science Museum canceled an appearance by Watson for Friday, because his comments had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate". October, for the Science Museum, is Black History month.

Some news agencies tend to tiptoe reverently around Dr. Watson. For instance BBC said, "within scientific circles, the 79-year-old is known as someone who loves debate and discussion." In the science circles I run in, this doesn't qualify as "debate", but as racism. The New York Times said: "Famed Scientist Apologizes for Quoted Racial Remarks". "Quoted", they say, imbuing the account with unlikeliness. A transcription error perhaps? According to the London Times "Kate Farquhar-Thomson, his publicist, refused to say whether Watson believed The Sunday Times had quoted him accurately. 'You have the statement. That's it, I'm afraid,' she said". The London Times said Watson read the article before it was submitted.

CNN, a paper of increasingly dubious record, pulls itself away from lurid movie star stories long enough to fill in some more background:

"In 1997, Britain's Sunday Telegraph quoted Watson as saying that if a gene for homosexuality were isolated, women who find that their unborn child has the gene should be allowed to have an abortion.

During a lecture tour in 2000, he suggested there might be links between a person's weight and their level of ambition and between skin color and sexual prowess. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to The Associated Press, which cited people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

And in a British TV documentary that aired in 2003, Watson suggested stupidity was a genetic disease that should be treated."

Watson actually has a longer record of insults then their brief history tells, he has been slandering woman and minorities for as long as he's been basking in the warm glow of appreciation for revealing the structure of DNA. This isn't the late life meanderings of a little old man: "I cannot understand", he said. As in oh dear, did I say that?

His reputation for deriding women and their intelligence is based on decades of remarks, though very once in a while, which is fortunate for that 50% of the population, he stumbles across an intelligent woman. On autism, Watson "hopes that by diagnosing autism early, 'we might prevent some autism-prone families having subsequent children'". [Emphasis ours]. As I see it, he's situated on a bit of a slippery slope, though he may be impervious to it. One of his children was "seriously incapacitated", a fact that he attributes to his age at the time of conception-- 42, not to his original genome. Viagra is a culprit he says. So for him anyway, sterilization would not have helped? A Science writer noted in an 2003 book review that Watson promoted "vintage eugenics".

Watson apologizes now for his most recent comments, as they all do. A couple of writers quickly leapt to his defense. Admirers who warn that they're canceling their visit to that science museum -- severe economic threat indeed. Confusingly, the same writers argue that the economic rewards for Watson's ideas should flow unfettered, that his book tour with its museum stop (and profits) should continue. Allow "the debate" they say, feature the evidence. But scientific evidence will not convince racists not to be racists. If it did, and if Watson's as smart as he says he is, wouldn't he have changed his tune by now?

Toeing the Jagged Moral Line

Although most of us would not defend Watson's remarks, we ably justify some level of racism for various self-serving reasons. We can separate Don Imus's rampage or Michael Richards' from James Watson's. At least one individual will no doubt read this paragraph and immediately start listing all the differences between the aforementioned players. But James Watson is Dr. James Watson, they'll say, just think of his contribution to society! He's no two-bit celebrity, as entertaining in the public's denunciation for racism as on some lucrative talk show -- He's Dr. James Watson.

Do we selectively elevate the opinions of others based on assumptions we make about their status, their power, intelligence, or fame? Of course. Do we sometimes privilege the James Watsons, George Bushs, professors, and presidents to pursue whatever agenda they coyly reveal? Sure. Not that Watson needs to be coy anymore than George Bush does. Watson has learned that audiences will wrap his offensiveness in a cocoon of awe, and may even secretly question whether in all his brilliance, he knows something that they don't about genetics. We're capable of handily interpreting the same spiel different ways depending on whose mouth it spews from and our judgment of the speaker's power.

Why, we ask, has Watson been allowed to get away with this to date, to prosper? Is it Watson's science prestige? He has long floated along unhinged in his outrageous beliefs but unhindered by his habit of unfortunate comments; acquiring grants, lending his name to new buildings, trying to find cancer genes, promoting himself, enjoying the limelight. He's a charming man, blithely tossing out abusive zingers all along the way. Seduced by his power, convinced that his intelligence informs his remarks, we're dangerous because years of entrenched bigotry pass by. Our spurious evaluations collectively become society's schismatic moral code.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Succeed

Collectively and individually, we have spastic notions about what's acceptable. Said one biologist of the noble laureate: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain". Women, that's one thing. But now my dear Watson, you've really crossed the line. A confusing delineation.

Many scientists, like Dr. Watson, are afforded "proteges" who listen with rapt attention, diligently recording whatever the master says in their notebooks.The author of the London Times article, introduced as one of his "proteges", said she was "unnerved by his devil-may-care compulsion to say what he believes". Her careful article obviously fueled the current public response. But why only now, after all this time, did she dare to be "unnerved"? Had she had the courage to be a bit more emotive long ago, "aghast" perhaps, which was the Merriam Webster's word of the day for October 18, 2008, would she still be Watson's "protege"? Would she be able to dine in his presence? Would she have the honor of reviewing his book?

There are payoffs to allowing famous people, Nobel laureates, university presidents, politicians, and celebrities who we encounter in our daily lives their little "indiscretions". After all, they may reward us. They may nod in our direction one day if we keep bowing just right. We're careful about "career limiting moves", speaking out at the wrong time, challenging the principal. But the more we excuse these 'otherwise fine men and women', the more we rationalize their aberrant assertions, the more we empower bigots.

Perhaps it's "this gene", the one for cancerous bigotry induced by reflexive idolatry, for which we should be most hopefully hunting.

Speak Out

As a society we're rampantly inconsistent. For instance we express very little tolerance for similarly degrading physical abuse. The idea of sending Watson to do janitorial public service, which was Naomi Campbell's punishment after she beaned an assistant on the head with a cell phone and drew blood, is laughable not just because he's 80 and doesn't have a cute cap to don while he's sweeping. We wouldn't consider such a thing, a man of his credentials. However, incongruously Watson has maligned an entire continent of individuals. He may be "mortified" by his comments, but he is unscathed. The damage, the deadening of spirit and hope will manifest for his targets, young scientists who are compelled once more to double check the science literature of on IQ, blacks who endure century after century of the same numbing tirades, women who fear that they'll always be judged on anything but their intelligence.

Some argue that we continue to accept racism because we're "hypocritical racists". That we need to come up with strategies other than pressing fleeting apologies from racist offenders. Otherwise "we find scapegoats in these men...It becomes too easy to deny the fact that [the] internalized beliefs [of distant public officials] might be similar to our own". This is no doubt true. Fortunately though, we're not all racists. Among the many, many, many, people who fight against racism Bob Herbert of the New York Times often, convincingly and eloquently argues the importance of continuing to speak out. We should not hesitate to do so, just because it's Mr. Watson.

Then Forget?

¹Now we hear that Watson has been suspended from his "administrative position" and his book tour canceled. Cold Spring Harbor officials said they were "bewildered" by his latest statements. Should we believe their "bewilderment?". Will the "bewilderment" over Watson's assertions pass once the dust settles? Watson is still strongly associated with CSHL and the new, spiffy, well-funded Watson School of Biological Sciences.

Ex-president Summers was taken to task at Harvard for (not only) his comments about women's intelligence. Today, though not the president, Summer maintains his professorship, is allowed ample space in papers the write columns on liberal topics, and is paid handsomely to speak on topics of economic and business import. He has maintained his authority and platform.

²As we're in the height of the row over Watson's comments, we tend to pay less attention to following up on past national racism forums. A broadcasting executive recently announced that it's time for the public "to forgive Don Imus". The radio personality's impending return to the airwaves with his own show is reported in only a handful of publications, according to Google. Yet its only six months after his racists sexist remarks dominated news headlines for weeks and massive public outrage erupted.

We seem to have endless capacity to expurgate the appalling from the biography of any personality judged to be sufficiently important or economically useful. What does this signal? How short our attention? How shallow our indignation? How sheer our values?

UC and Tobacco

Wednesday was perhaps a typical University of California (UC) day. En route to their commencement celebrations, UC Berkeley students passed custodians who were picketing for raises. In support of the protesters, their scheduled speaker, Danny Glover, canceled his talk. A few dozen UC students on several campuses started a solid food hunger strike to protest nuclear research, in what U.S. News and World Report suggested might be "a boon for the pudding industry". Meanwhile, the UC Academic Senate, for its part, defeated RE-89, a measure aimed at barring tobacco industry funding of academic research.

The senate voted 43-4 against RE-89, with 3 abstentions. RE-89 represents the most recent push by some UC faculty to ban tobacco industry sponsorship. It follows last year's D.C. District Court decision, which confirmed in 1,742-pages that, among other transgressions, five tobacco companies lied about the hazards of tobacco and smoking for 50 years, enticed children to smoke, and used university researchers to help undermine anti-tobacco litigation efforts.

In trying to ban tobacco funding across the UC system, faculty were responding to a recent UC policy limiting individual schools from setting policies to ban tobacco money. That measure, enacted in 2005, overturned the tobacco funding policies set by the nursing, medical, public and family health schools, on the Berkeley, UCSF, UCLA, and San Diego campuses. By setting policy, University leadership forbid those schools, with their public health missions and first hand experience with the devastating tobacco related morbidity and mortality, from declining tobacco money. Other universities, such as Ohio State University, Harvard, and John Hopkins, have no such limits on individual schools whose academic missions clash with the goals of tobacco companies.

Why Tobacco?

Stanford University is also considering a campus-wide ban on tobacco funding, and professors there argue divisively along the same lines as the UC faculty. Some contend that professors should be free to pursue whatever research they choose, including tobacco. Others say that if any business ever earned the label "evil", it's the tobacco industry, and that continuing to welcome tobacco's dollars on campuses undermines university goals.

Faculty who disapprove of tobacco funding are often associated with public health or medical schools, in some cases they've devoted their scholarship to studying the tobacco industry. The UCSF contingent of the Academic Senate voted for the UC ban, and the UCSF campus is dedicated solely to medicine and graduate science research. Stanford tobacco industry historian Robert Proctor noted, "We really don't want to be collaborating with an industry that is producing the world's largest preventable cause of death."

University presidents, on the other hand, generally argue for what they call academic freedom. They maintain that academic integrity and conflict of interest guidelines for research cover any touchy issues that might arise in sponsored research. Evidence doesn't always support this claim. A 2003 study by a UCLA professor was one of four examples of academic research tainted by tobacco funding cited by Judge Kessler in her court decision. (In response to various ethical breaches, all UC staff and faculty are required to take a 30 on-line minute ethics class this year.)

Stanford President John Hennessy said "This is a political message, and I am very concerned that we are changing our academic policy to send a political message." His statement no doubt meant that the university doesn't need to send a political message to tobacco companies, condemning their toxic products. But since the primary charge of University presidents is to raise money for campus, they wouldn't necessarily be too eager to muddy the waters of fund raising goals by implying that their university might be choosy about where it gets its money. That would be the wrong political message to send to tobacco companies.

University administrations across the United States are sensitive to the issue of tobacco funding. Although universities often post conflict of interest policies and publicly list their funding sources, when we called universities with questions about their tobacco research funding policies, we received a wide variety of interesting responses from administrators. Some talked very openly about their decision making processes, but others were especially guarded. Coincidentally these were generally the universities who posted affiliations with the tobacco industry.

It's a tricky balancing act for universities. Although many have divested their tobacco interests, these universities often continue to accept tobacco money for research. Since university communities are increasingly hostile to the tobacco industry and its smoke, these universities seem reluctant to discuss their nuanced policies. Tobacco industry money doesn't generally amount to a large percentage of research money but universities are quietly vigilant about protecting their rights to it.

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

Acronym Required wrote more about the UC tobacco policy decision process a few months ago in "My Lab Thanks You For Smoking".

A number of books have been written on the relationships between corporations and universities.

The Wall Street Journal posed a challenge to scientists in yesterday's paper: "Is an Economist Qualified To Solve Puzzle of Autism?" Author Mark Whitehouse looked at the controversy stirred up by Cornell economist Michael Waldman's study¹ last October that linked TV viewing to autism. In "Does Television Cause Autism?" Waldman used precipitation records and cable subscriptions as proxies for TV viewing, then performed statistical analysis to correlate television watching with incidence of autism.

Waldman was motivated to study autism by his family's experience with his young son, who was affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder. In response to his son's diagnosis, and in addition to doctor recommended therapies, he curtailed his son's television watching. To his surprise the child recovered completely. However he was unable to engage doctors to study whether TV caused autism, so he studied the connection himself. He found a causal effect in his study and recommended that parents not allow young children to watch TV. As the WSJ article recounts, many researchers don't agree with his conclusion. Scientists, autism researchers especially, were most critical, but economists also questioned his methods. Although his methods weren't unheard of, some economists said the "instrumental-variables technique" was imperfect and others said it tempted economists to study topics they're "not particularly well-trained" to study. Acronym Required wrote a satirical post on the study last October².

Despite the impression given by the Wall Street Journal, Waldman's self-reliant approach to setting a science research agenda is not unprecedented. Other people whose kids are afflicted by autism have also poured personal resources into autism research. A 2005 Wall Street Journal article, "A Hedge-fund Titan Stirs up Research into Autism", mathematician James Simons, who, motivated by his daughter's autism, founded an organization that plans to spend over 100 million dollars on autism research. The 2005 WSJ article noted the controversy over Simons' funding:

"When the Massachusetts Institute of Technology asked him for money for brain research, he demanded that the project focus on autism and include scientists he liked. He has provided his family's DNA for study, pitched in to help solve research problems and is pushing scientists to probe a genetically based explanation for the disease."

"Many are cheering this influx of cash, hoping Mr. Simons' riches can buy a breakthrough. Others complain that Mr. Simons isn't working with existing autism groups and that his focus on finding a genetic explanation could miss the disease's true cause."

Yesterday, two years later, the WSJ article cautions:

"by suggesting that something within parents' control could be triggering autism, Prof. Waldman has reopened old wounds in the realm of autism research, which is littered with debunked theories linking the disorder to the family environment."

The WSJ quoted senior vice president of Autism Speaks and mother of an autistic child, who said: "Autism is a genetic disorder. The only thing the parents do wrong is they have bad genes." Autism Speaks was founded by two years ago by Bob Wright, Vice Chairman and Executive Officer and GE Chairman of NBC Universal, whose grandson is autistic. However, if Waldman's research was solid, why shouldn't economists study autism? Wouldn't parents appreciate a solution in hand, as opposed to one that entails decades of research and development?

The connection between autism and TV would best be studied in controlled experiments between groups of children, but according to the WSJ, economists don't have the "money or the access to children" to perform this kind of research. The WSJ quoted "Ami Klin, director of the autism program at the Yale Child Study Center, [who] says Prof. Waldman needlessly wounded families by advertising an unpublished paper that lacks support from clinical studies of actual children." In other words, Klin said, Waldman's conclusions conflicted with results of clinical trials that were already done.

The genetic links to autism are currently being studied intensely and the effort is fruitful. Scientists have discovered genes that could account for one or more aspects of Autism Spectral Disorder. The Yale Child Study Center is partially funded by the Simon's Foundation.

The WSJ also quoted Klin sayng: "The moment you start to use economics to study the cause of autism, I think you've crossed a boundary." Yet is the question really about whether economists can study science problems? Economists contribute significantly to fields including psychology, ecology, and international development.

Scientists distort the issue by focusing on parental blame, or whether an economist can contribute to research. Shouldn't we just look at whether a specific paper more approximates rigorous research or Swiss cheese? Waldman's paper was criticized because it drew speculative conclusions and was advertised in a what amounted to a sensationalist press release as opposed to being published in a peer reviewed academic journal. While the researchers and authors may have been swayed by conviction, their resulting study didn't meet the standards of the autism community, psychologists or neurobiologists. As WSJ reported, Joseph Piven, director of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Research Center at the University of North Carolina, said of the confounding variables, "It is just too much of a stretch to tie this to television-watching...[W]hy not tie it to carrying umbrellas?"

Did the paper meet economist's standards, a skeptical reader's standards, or for that matter the own researcher's standards? Scientists ideally start from a neutral position then work to disprove their theories, in order to prove them to themselves, their peers, and the world. Social scientists approach problem solving similarly. If the paper was representative of the field of economics, we might look at economics and its influence with renewed skepticism.

Why not just conclude that this particular exploration, however well intended, wasn't that rigorous, and/or didn't seem to support the author's conclusions and final recommendations. Waldman perhaps used his reputation in another field to build media interest around this hypothesis. He's not the first researcher to flip the scientific process on its ear. Other scientists have announced "results" prior to publication, with various motives. Perhaps his move was strategic, but it remains to be seen whether this economist can circumvent the research process to successfully demand that the science community study his hypothesis.

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

¹ The original paper "Does Television Cause Autism?", is posted online at NBER working papers and from the Cornell website. Read it for yourself. What do you think?

²Last October, Acronym Required wrote "Autism, TV, Precipitation: Dismal Science", a satirical 10 step research how-to for repeating the results of Waldman's original paper.

Colleges Ban Wikipedia

The New York Times published the story this week about colleges encouraging students to use sources other than Wikipedia as references for academic work. A professor in Middlebury College's history department initiated the policy after several students wrote on an exam that "the Jesuits supported the Shimabara Rebellion in 17th-century Japan". The professor noted that there were few Jesuits in Japan at the time and they were "in 'no position to aid a revolution'". Middlebury College is not the first to forbid references to Wikipedia¹, it's a growing trend.

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, said he didn't consider Middlebury's decision "negative". Of course the definition of "encyclopedia" (or -"paedia"), is "course of general education" not, as some would have it -- 'a collection of definitive answers to all questions'. Others point out that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary or primary source suitable for college essays.

The New York Times writes that the problem with Wikipedia is accuracy, however others aren't as critical, for instance the courts. Another New York Times article found that, "100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court". Several studies have concluded that Wikipedia's information is comparable to other sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Nature devised one of the studies, an "expert-led investigation" of 50 entries about scientists and scientific concepts. ("Internet encyclopaedias go head to head", December, 2005. Nature 438, 900-901). The journal appointed experts who deemed 42 of 50 articles surveyed "usable". The unusable articles included four each from Britannica and Wikipedia, which contained inaccuracies like "misinterpretations of important concepts". The review also found articles with "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively".

Internet Time vs. Britannica Time

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, responded to the results, telling Nature he wanted to recruit more "experts" to write the articles. One reviewer said people would find it "shocking" to know how many errors were in Britannica. Britannica, lifeblood apparently draining, wrote a charged rebuttal (.pdf) to Nature's study. It began: "Everything about the journal's investigation, from the criteria for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and its headline, was wrong and misleading." Over the next 20 pages it vilified the report as "poorly carried out", "error-laden", "without merit", and "without value". Britannica published the defense on its website three months after Nature's original story and took out an ad in a London paper demanding a retraction.

By the time Britannica got around to it's rebuttal people in and out of the media had digested Nature's results. A few questioned them, for instance one New York Times writer asked one of Nature's experts why he had flagged a fact in an article as inaccurate when his own book contained the same fact. ("The Nitpicking of the Masses vs. the Authority of the Experts". January 3, 2006). Other reporters distilled the results less analytically under titles like this: "'Nature': Wikipedia is accurate" (USA Today Dec. 12, 2005).

Nature wholeheartedly defended its methods and conclusions and refused to retract its article. For whatever reason, the journal was in the middle of an encyclopedia war -- and strangely -- on the open access side. Its article helped convince people that Wikipedia was more than just World Wide Web whimsy.

For its part, Britannica fought the perception that it was seeing its life flash before its eyes like a door in the face of an encyclopedia salesman. The Wall Street Journal (September 12, 2006) hosted an email forum between Mr. Wales of Wikipedia, and Dale Hoiberg, senior vice president and editor in chief of Britannica. Wales cited some links to articles critical of Britannica data. Hoiberg replied that there was ample criticism of Wikipedia too, but he didn't have it handy. Wales emailed back a Wikipedia.com link containing the entire body of criticism on Wikipedia, and took the opportunity to pedantically explain the joys accessing information instantaneously. Hoiberg cited Britannica's "trained editors and fact-checkers" and "more than 4,000 experts", processes, and strict editorial control. Wales taunted that those words were "fitting for an epitaph".

How do we Know?

Is it important that so called tertiary sources are squaring off about who's more accurate, or that colleges are urging students to use primary and secondary sources? Some commentators virtually shrugged. But important questions about how people verify information, what information is trusted, who can publish information and who controls information are at the heart of these debates. When bloggers began producing content, newspapers ranted on and on about how worthless blogs were. Many still do, although they also incorporate blogs into their online content. The PLoS publishing model motivated scientific publishers to hire PR firms who coined deceptive one line: slogans like"Public 'access equals government censorship'; 'Scientific journals preserve the quality/pedigree of science'; and 'government seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher'"

Wikipedia claims that anyone can publish information (with some limits). Many people criticize this model. The New York Times published a piece last month, titled "Anonymous Source Is Not the Same as Open Source". In it, the author said that employing "secondary epistemic criteria" is necessary to verify sources. "Once upon a time, Encyclopaedia Britannica recruited Einstein, Freud, Curie, Mencken and even Houdini as contributors.The names helped the encyclopedia bolster its credibility." The author's quote speaks well, if inadvertently, to the inherent problem. Who's an authority? Houdini may be a font of information but should he be plunked so close to Einstein? Should Freud be slipped next to Curie -- with only a comma separating them? The author continued: "The egalitarian nature of a system that accords equal votes to everyone in the ''community'' -- middle-school student and Nobel laureate alike -- has difficulty resolving intellectual disagreements." To the author perhaps Houdini is an authority to reference. To some he may be an authority on magic tricks of yore but nothing else. But Houdini may also had some insight up his sleeve on some other subject that would be a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. Wikipedia users could judge.

The author says we need to proxies for authority to assess information. Health and science data is especially daunting to assess, therefore we often rely pedigree. So credentials become the proxy for assessing knowledge, occasionally to a fault, as in: Nobel Laureate trumps Professor trumps Associate Professor trumps Assistant Professor trumps MD/PhD trumps Lecturer trumps Resident or PostDoc trumps PhD trumps MS trumps BS trumps Harvard Dropout trumps BA (or something like that). In science the gold standard for research is redoing the experiment, but such testing is usually impractical. These judgments often work, obviously, we will trust our doctor over a spam mail advertising the benefits of herbal health enhancers, but if we put too much faith in credentials or publishing record, we can unwittingly cede our power to evaluate information.

Government as Information Arbiter?

There's some literature out there on this subject and we stumbled across this paper titled: "The problem of online misinformation and the role of schools". The author proposed a two part solution for schools. One was to teach skills to help students assess data, which he fleshed out considerably. Secondly he suggested assigning "intermediaries" to vet sites and "promot[e] reliable sources of online information". For this, he proposed "government-sponsored Web portals and librarians". As far as I know, librarians already do this, so we focused on what he meant by "intermediary". He used medical information as an example of information difficult to evaluate for validity. He cautioned about the potential drawbacks and biases of many types of information sites even those from trusted government sources. He recommended MedlinePlus, part of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) as a good source for students because it was free of bias, amply funded, a well organized, and carried the right pedigree, which he defined as: "18,000 staff, including thousands of physicians and scientists in white lab coats, 106 of whom have been awarded Nobel prizes."².

It's certainly a sound enough recommendation, but nothing is this simple. Frederick Seitz probably wore a "white lab coat". He is a very credentialed PhD physicist, the recipient of the National Medal of Science, the Franklin Medal, the Herbert Hoover Medal, the Defense Department Distinguished Service Award, as well as two NASA Distinguished Service Awards, and The Compton Award. He is a President Emeritus of Rockefeller University Former President of the National Academy of Sciences, Recipient of the Fourth Vannevar Bush Award and the R. Loveland Memorial Award of the American College of Physicians, former President of New York City Commission for Science and Technology, Former Chair of the United States delegation to the U.N. Committee on Science and Technology for Development, as well as over 20 honorary degrees.

Seitz used his stellar credentials to obtain a job working for tobacco companies', and on their behalf he argued for several decades that cigarette smoke was benign. He also used his credentials to rally scientists against climate change evidence. He cited his awards to establish a foundation used to advocate "sound science", that bolstered political positions in order to undermine real scientific evidence. He often inserted himself and his impressive credentials in between business and public health, especially when business interests seemed in conflict with public health risks.

Reference Regulation

This isn't to denigrate the expertise of scientists and doctors and lawyers, but upon occasion experts are as fallible, capable of bias or deception as non-experts. In science and medicine, sycophants to pedigree have enabled huge sweeping, expensive catastrophes and personal tragedies. Renowned scientists have produced false data, and a recent study found that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans a year die from medical errors, many from credentialed doctors.

Nevertheless, everyday as consumers of information we must make decisions; judge the validity of a medical study funded by pharmaceutical companies, learn why science facts are excised out of government science reports, and try to figure out whether the "man on the street" is being candid about the technology or astroturfing while we live our busy lives.

Banning Wikipedia may rightly force students to find alternative sources of information but what data is reliable? Are professors guiding students, elaborating about how history books can be slanted? Do they explain that newspaper articles can distort the facts, as can the evening news? What biases do they bring to their lectures? Are we saying that primary sources don't have opinions, that their value systems are not intermingled with their accounts? We can hopefully vouch for the fact that primary sources said what they said, if they're speaking on camera, but do we know they meant it? Marketing and public relations have altered the landscape and many people have no compunction about standing up and lying on camera. Scientist who do primary research recognize the myriad challenges to designing and conducting experiments to generate and report accurate, relevant data. Pedigree is a very imperfect standard for assessing truth, as is the internet.³

The skill of assessing sources should be honed in college by practice not rules. A professor can be the arbiter of sources for a semester, and a college or librarian may serve that role for a few years, but our future depends on students mastering these skills for life.

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

¹We're biased. We like encyclopedias (in general). We love Wikipedia's mission and are forever impressed with the information we find. We often link to Wikipedia to give readers background to subjects we editorialize. We also choose not to link to Wikipedia when articles about controversial medical procedures or public health/policy issues understate risks or read more like product literature.

²Suggesting that the government sanctioned sources is different than the proposed Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (FRPAA) which would require federally funded researchers to post papers online after six months.

³ There is a book on this called "Who Controls The Internet?" that's well-argued.

Summary: 'We don't believe their lines anymore, CEI authors who insist with a straight face that global warming science is a plot of "socialists and communists". We're wise to their tactics. Nevertheless, we feel sorry for them when they pathetically claim that because of their "efforts to educate the public, Greenpeace has repeatedly targeted [them], by stealing their garbage on a weekly basis...."'

Climate Change Communication-- Does It Work?

The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) met last week in San Francisco, California. On its website, they talk about a panel on communication of climate change that happened, titled "More communication of climate change science won't spur problem solving, says CU researcher". The panel was based on coeditors Lisa Dillings and Susanne Moser called: "Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change." According to the press release:

"The notion that more information about the science of human-caused climate change will spur effective problem solving by American society is just flat wrong, according to a University of Colorado at Boulder climate policy analyst."

As Dilling put it: "What we do know is that handing out fliers about the consequences of climate change and assuming people will change their ways doesn't work". She added that most people don't connect their own energy consumption with CO2 emissions.

We were eager to delve into the book, to learn about these issues, pull out pithy quotes and interesting facts and share them with you, but since the book is listed for $115-$135 new on Amazon and doesn't include excerpts, you can do that on your own. For now, we're left to make assumptions based on the bits of the book that Amazon gives sneak previews of for free, the cover for instance -- is it a lovely sunset on a clear summer day. Or is it a sky crimson from pollution? We won't know.

Communication Doesn't Work -- Really?

Taken at face value, the title of the conference press release states the antithesis of what we thought we had observed. Our blithe reaction was -- really? Communication isn't working? Not long ago, we couldn't have agreed more with this premise. For quite a while it seemed peoples' concern over climate change was diminishing the more scientific evidence accumulated. Intelligent people, friends even -- with no ExxonMobil holdings at all-- dismissed the facts of climate change. In April of last year, it seemed like we would be forever stalled at the debate stage of climate change. In considering my options for gloomy posts on the state of affairs, I had half a mind to just post a link to HappyNews.com and call it a day.

Instead, back in April Acronym Required included a weary review of the so called two sides of the climate change debate. We wrote in "Sea Change or Littoral Disaster": "Each headline that shows more evidence of warming is greeted with hope from those who believe that the naysayers really, really do need one more piece of evidence to convince them. Then the barrage of squawky letters to editors follows from the people who insist the science is all flawed."

Since that post, there has been a palpable, almost surprising change in public acknowledgment of climate change. A year's worth of research, more corporate attention, the movie "The Inconvenient Truth", more warming and melting and extreme weather events, an election that put leaders who recognize the importance of the climate issue in charge, as well as the bi-annual report of the International Panel on Climate Change IPCC. All have all helped sway public perception. The media has also changed its tune from the relentless and nonsensical even-steven coverage of each 'side', to a more truthful representation of the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

When we reflected back on 2006 at the beginning of this year, it seemed that this tangible change in recognition of climate change was one of the most hopeful events of 2006. I credited it in part with many peoples' skillful and urgent communications. Was I naive? Granted, the authors in the AAAS paper talk about people's willingness to change. But isn't the first step acknowledging the problem? Perhaps, if we dare, communication is actually working wonderfully.

Communication from the Ideological Right

Clearly not everybody has acknowledged climate change, most disturbingly -- The White House. The Bush administration won't step forward on the issue, perhaps because they're still all ears to their loudest constituencies. Their loyal to Fox News, which occasionally breaks from serving up fare such as "What it's Like to be a Hooters Calendar Centerfold", to advise the Bush White House on climate policy. The Fox News blog "Junk Science" agitated when the White House announced it was considering a measure to list Polar Bears as an endangered species last December:

"Rather than issuing the proposal in a tentative and low-key manner, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne issued a media release and reigned over a press teleconference."

"It's a futile gesture that only signals a weakening in the Bush administration's heretofore strong stance against global warming hysteria."

Heretofore we would know that the moment "JunkScience published those words, we'd be hearing them in future conversations with our climate change challenged friends, who would spew the exact phrase forth in their eager never-ending debates climate change. Now, it's not as likely. Last April we wrote about "George Will and his ilk" and the relentless climate change denial brigade. Now his ilk have less of an effect on our opinions.

It's not that their forceful naysaying has melted away under the bright lights of the IPCC report. Christopher Horner of the CEI, for instance, who in the past found an audience in the Senate for his negative opinions of international climate treaties, is making media rounds publicizing his book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalists". Horner says he never denied climate change, it's just that the climate changes and that's not proof of anything. The difference between now and last April, in my opinion, is that these arguments aren't salable to the general population.

Horner appeared on Jon Stewart on Comedy Central recently, where he insisted that climate change is large scale plot of conspiring anti-capitalists. The audience sat there, silent, tense, disbelieving, except once when they just broke out laughing. That was after Horner said that "wherever the so-called socialists and communists are in governments anywhere then they are in coalition with the Greens". He proposed that the only reason that industry might appear to be complying [by acting on climate change] is to obtain a "get out of jail free card" from the Greens. "The powerful Greens??", Stewart scoffed.

Stewart and his audience weren't buying any of it. Horner's website appeals to a more sympathetic self-selecting audience, stating that because of his "efforts to educate the public, Greenpeace has repeatedly targeted Mr. Horner, by stealing his garbage on a weekly basis...." That is sad. Horner portraying himself in the third person as a pathetic pariah.

We've long been educated and are now familiar with tobacco's denials of the links between cancer and smoking. We've read the papers, we've seen the oil profits, we've heard the scientists and the bloggers. But when, exactly, did the campaign to discredit global warming lose its edge? When public opinion got nudged into a downward spiral by the Bush administration's blatant mendacity in Iraq? The federal and state bungling of Hurricane Katrina? Gore's movie? The newspaper editorials? The freakish storms and extreme weather events? Somewhere along the line communication changed public opinion.

Communicate but Don't Relax

While we think we see the tide turning, we're not smug or righteous. To Americans, Horner may sound nuts, but both Democrats and Republicans scorn the Green Party. In context of a European audience (where the Green Party actually has a place in government) his neo-liberal parry makes more sense. In fact, even the Democratic Party of the United States has worked to undermine the already quite small Green Party of the United States. The Democrats have blamed the loss of key races on the Green Party, and when one mayoral race in California became quite close three years ago they sent Bill Clinton, Al Gore and a parade of Democrats to campaign for the Democrat candidates to stand up to a viable Green Party contender. In Europe, social-democratic governments are foundering economically but the governments that have Green Party representation are also the ones that ratified Kyoto. Is Horner trying to appeal to the Democratic Party? Europeans?

The bottom line though, is that even corporations are responding to current climate change. Business practice that saves energy and makes environmental sense, coincidentally, profits. Given that Horner represents business interests, he's unreasonably fixated on an ideological conservative message -- if not certifiably paranoid about the "Communist threat". Nevertheless, he's unyielding and clever in his goal to garner allies for his cause and perhaps too easy to underestimate.

Communication Works

To the authors' point, if communication doesn't work, then why do the CEI and AEI and conservative public relations firms, not to mention individuals like Horner work so hard? Why has ExxonMobil pumped $19 million dollars into disinformation campaigns about global warming? If communication doesn't work, then why do all these organizations put so much effort and money into getting their messages across? If communication doesn't work than why is every other ad on television for a shiny new automobile?

To make her point, Dilling says that 90% of people think that global climate change is serious or very serious but only 1/3 of people find this "worrisome" -- a number that they say has been growing smaller until "very recently". But perhaps her "dwindling", corresponds to the oil companies' political campaign over the same time period which sought to present global warming as "not a problem"¹. Is it completely coincidental that people surveyed responded with the exact answer that was the message of the conservative groups against global warming¹? And perhaps the "very recent" increase of people who find global warming worrisome corresponds to "very recent" surge in communication and research about the problem -- Gore's movie, IPCC, etc.

The message of climate change skeptics protects the status quo by presenting an easy action item for the public -- do nothing different, don't worry, climate change is not a problem. That's arguably an easier, more appealing action item than the effort required by pleas to cut back on CO2 emissions. Cutting back threatens our "core values". Anti-consumption is a hard sell these days. Regardless, communication has undoubtedly spurred the change in attitude. Where would we'd be if we hadn't made the effort?

Dilling's book probably goes into good detail as to the reasons why climate change scientists felt like the message wasn't getting across. But perhaps the multi-million dollar campaign pushing the conservative line, "don't worry"; overpowered the alternative message with the grim vision about "changing our lifestyles".

They'll Fix it

If we've moved beyond the climate change "debate", however, as I argue we have, we've only entered another stage. I'm not sure what to call it, but it if we appropriated something like the familiar five stages of dealing with catastrophe- denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, then maybe people have moved on to some sort of denial/bargaining phase. People's minds fill their minds with ideas about how we can buy our way out, with some carbon credits, some alternative energy, or some prizes. Again, this is procrastination. If buying our way out doesn't work, at least we've bought some time.

Companies have visibly increased their marketing budgets to make it seem like they're "green". Electric companies put up websites with ads that urge people to take the bus. ExxonMobil runs full page ads in the Wall Street Journal that state: "actually, we're working to reduce emissions for 6.5 billion people". The stock market swoons, not at that happy little marketing message, but because aside from the message, there are glorious ExxonMobil oil profits, in the range of $36.1 billion in 2006 -- $1,146 per second -- $6 dollars per year of oil profits for every human on earth. One money manager frothed: "I think if oil prices stay north of $50, this company is going to continue to have tons of cash... this company is going to be minting money."

With much fanfare, Richard Branson offered a $25 million dollar prize to someone who can figure out how to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. He delivered the announcement standing next to a smiling Al Gore, who in "The Inconvenient Truth" mocked those who would continue polluting, then try to the earth cool down with giant ice cubes.

There are actually technology schemes that are underfunded and might have potential. People talk about storing CO2 in caves, about "artificial trees with "leaves" that absorb the gas, solar-powered scrubbers, and carbon-sucking towers in Antarctica".This is all very optimistic, but I can't help but be reminded of a chef acquaintance, a consummate practical joker. When new assistants started working in his kitchen he would invariably ask them to run an errand for him. It was an emergency, he'd explain, waving his arms frantically, a mishap with his soup de jour...Could the assistant kindly run like the wind, across town to Chez Chez and ask them for a huge favor - to borrow their pepper extractor? The Chez Chez kitchen would comply with a straight face, sending back some useless tool, a whisk say, explaining to the underling its hidden powers. It wasn't a serious culinary lesson about the futility of trying to remove spice that has been too exuberantly applied to a vat of soup, just a failing source of amusement to most involved (except the exhausted assistant). Nevertheless it has a familiar ring.

Branson acknowledges that the schemes might not work, and that people need to curb their output. But that's not the dominant message. Like most businesses, he's more keen on continuing his own company's growth, and significant pollution, than having his freedom to pollute curbed by carbon regulation. Silicon Valley businesses are currently very active hosting alternative energy panels at venues in the Bay area, that quickly sell out at $20 and up per ticket. Businesses are more eager to pursue profitable energy "alternatives" for the future, than to stop pouring carbon into the air now. Citizens are happy to let business figure it all out for them. This new bargaining is an extension of the last message actually -- you don't need to worry. You don't really need to do anything, lets see if someone can invent something. Change is too difficult and no fun, lets not think too hard about that, lets try to buy or bargain our way out -- I can pick up some milk and butter and carbon credits at the store on the way home honey....

Not everyone is controlling the communication about climate change, but some people are, and consumers are busy acting according to the messages they're receiving from those strong communicators.

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

¹McCright, Aaron, Dunlap, Riley, (PDF) Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative. Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. (PDF) 2003, in Social Problems Vol 50(3) 348-373. (McCright is one of the authors of the book, this is a interesting study that he co-authored (that's not in the book))

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

Some related Acronym Required articles:

On Climate Change denial: Sea Change or Littoral Disaster

Business and Climate Change: "Carbon Emissions Disclosure Project"

Ice core research to study atmospheric conditions 650,000 years ago: "Holocene Days"

Politics and climate change: "Will Loose Lips - Or Global Warming - Sink Ships?".

Carbon emissions regulation after Katrina: "The Environment & Katrina-Slick Oil Fallout"

Drought in the "Amazon", and in "Australia".

Science research communication and climate change: "Research, Politics and Working Less", and "Science Communication".

Academic Freedom?

Today the University of California Faculty Senate meets again to debate the pros and cons of the University continuing to accept research money from tobacco companies. It remains to be seen whether they will act on this agenda item or not, as they have been debating banning tobacco money for many years.

The current round of debates at UC is fueled in part by a recent federal court ruling. On August 17, 2006, the court ruled against Phillip Morris in United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc for violating Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act, and for "fraudulent corporate actions" and "disingenuous relationship with academic research institutions". The decision is being appealed, but is convincing enough to be used as fodder in this latest round of debates by those at the University who are lobbying to ban tobacco funding.

Responsibility for making the decision about tobacco funding has become a bit of a political hot potato; the Faculty Senate recently passed the issue to the Board of Regents, who in turn passed the issue back to the Senate. The regents have the final say but are advised by the Faculty Senate. Since 1995, the University has received about 108 grants totaling $37 million dollars from tobacco companies. The University will point out that the tobacco money is only a small amount of the total grant money. It received $15.8 million dollars in ongoing tobacco grants from Phillip Morris in 2006, out of $4 billion of contracts and grants awarded that year.

For those who favor banning tobacco, the court ruling provided more credence to evidence that the tobacco industry thwarted and influenced research. According to information at UCSF,the schools of public health at Harvard, John Hopkins, Columbia; Emory, Harvard and John Hopkins medical schools, as well as some international universities ban tobacco money. [Edited 04/21/07, 05/07/07]

In fact anti-tobacco money advocates point out that the University of California is now the only university that forbids individual departments or schools from declining tobacco money, a rule the Faculty Senate passed in 2005 after several University entities independently ruled against accepting tobacco funding.

Blanket Ban?

People argue that researchers should be solely responsible for the soundness of their own potentially controversial science research programs. But there is evidence that not all researchers at the University of California were frank about their connections to tobacco, and that not all scientists who received tobacco grants published research that was sound or honest.

Some faculty object to the ban, saying that barring money from tobacco would create a slippery slope and open the doors to more funding source curtailments based on arbitrary ethics or morals. But slippery slope scenarios don't seem to be a problem at other schools that bar tobacco money.

Drawing an analogy from (controversial) history about the American Indians and their demise from smallpox infected blankets, one faculty member likened the banning tobacco funding to accepting pox infected blankets. They quipped; "we like to stay warm, we like blankets, just not from Jeffrey Amherst guy and his cronies".

UC is reluctant to ban tobacco money for many reasons, but the academic freedom argument seems to gain the most traction. The idea of a blanket ban repels many UC faculty, who cringe at the thought of imposing rules on what faculty members can or can't study. To counter this, other faculty argue with equal vehemence that accepting tobacco money impedes academic freedom by biasing research outcomes.

Interestingly, the individual freedoms argument, in the form of libertarian rationale, is commonly used to support tobacco sale and use. The movie "Thank-You For Smoking" is based (humorously) on this argument. Amartya Sen criticized the use of libertarian arguments against public smoking bans in a Financial Times editorial Monday titled, "Unrestrained Smoking is a Libertarian Half-way House".

Second-hand smoke causes health consequences to non-smoking victims as well as smokers. If people should be free to smoke despite the known health risks, than society is left with uncomfortable choices. We can systematically deny smokers and their smoke related illnesses the myriad public resources that come to their aid in disease. This is an unconscionable decision of "a monstrously unforgiving society", says Sen. Or all the smokers must be treated and everyone else bears the cost, despite our massive body of knowledge about the inevitable disease burden caused by smoking. Notes Sen: "We should not readily agree to be held captive in a half-way house erected by an inadequate assessment of the demands of liberty".

Based on the August 17th conclusions of the court, the continued acceptance of Tobacco's investment in research only abets the tobacco industry's substantiation of false claims about the benign affects of smoking. While tobacco companies profit, systemic health problems of smokers burden the health care system and raise insurance costs. These costs ponderously burden the UC system, its insured, and the state of California. Whose sense of liberty is this?

No doubt the Senate will argue all of these points vigorously. It remains to be seen how or if they will act.

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

♥♥♥The movie "Thank-You For Smoking" humorously, but in all seriousness, presents libertarian arguments for smoking.

NOTE: The Academic Senate postponed the vote until May.

CORRECTION (May 7, 2007): This article previously compared information in an article in the journal Science, to several documents listed at the library on the UCSF site. Here's one. (Link opens Acrobat!) We wrote the following: "Science wrote in, "UC Balks at Campus-Wide Ban on Tobacco Money for Research" (January 29, 2007); "...the University of California (UC) has delayed voting on a plan to impose a blanket ban on research funding from tobacco companies. If approved, the ban would make UC the only U.S. university to forbid tobacco dollars campus-wide."..." Acronym Required's original article cited the UCSF website information indicating that 21 U.S. Universities and Centers "decline tobacco funding". We have since contacted most of the universities listed on the UCSF site and couldn't duplicate UCSF's site information that 7 universities had campus wide bans, although many schools have units that disallow tobacco funding. All of the schools we contacted from the UCSF list allowed researchers to accept tobacco money, but most also allowed schools to institute bans, which UC does not. Some universities we contacted were under other constraints such as state guidelines around accepting tobacco settlement money while accepting tobacco industry grants. A more recent list of campus-wide policies (A.R. has not verified) is here.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Congress put forth a spending bill for 2007 that increases spending for physical-sciences and biomedical research. (Democratic Leaders in Congress Propose Increases for Scientific Research and Pell Grants in 2007 Budget, January 30, 2007). The Chronicle listed the proposed increases:

"The bill, which totals $463.5-billion, would be especially generous to scientific research. The research budget of the National Science Foundation would rise by nearly 8 percent, to $4.7-billion. Spending for the Energy Department's Office of Science would increase by about 6 percent, to $3.8-billion. Spending for the National Institutes of Health, the largest source of funds for university research, would rise by 2.1 percent, or $620-million, to $28.9-billion."

The bill also increases the maximum Pell grant award by 6% per year. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill on Wednesday. The bill also specifically bars the addition of any earmark funding.

48% of 12th Graders Have Less Than a "Basic" Understanding of Science

The National Assessment of Educational Progress released the results of science tests given in 2005 to a representative group of 300,000 students in the U.S. in grades 4,8 and 12. The tests graded students on science knowledge of physical science, earth science and biology and administrators determined the percentages of each grade that attained "below basic", "basic", "proficient" and "advanced" understanding of science. A sample question for eighth graders asked students to identify "the part of the cell that contains most of the cell's genetic material". 54% of the students that had a "basic" mastery of science answered the question correctly. Another "basic" question asked 12th graders to identify the function of a neuron, which about 50% of the test takers who attained "basic" levels of understanding managed to do.

A sample question for 4th graders has a picture of two cups, half filled with water, with "two solid steel balls" suspended over them, one much larger than the other. "In which cup will the water rise the most?", the question asks, and why? 64% of the "basic" students answered correctly. You would think most kids mastered the art of milk displacement by the time they've graduated their high-chairs but with the advent of sippy cups perhaps this is a lost science.

Relativity and the News: Bad Becomes Good

The 4th graders tested better than they did 5 years ago, a fact that was highlighted in many of the news stories. Eighth graders did not fare as well, 43% of all 8th graders are considered "Below Basic" level, while 30% are at "Basic" level. 24% are considered "Proficient", and 3% are considered "Advanced". By the time students reach the end of high school they've sunk even lower. Only 18% of 12th graders were considered "proficient". 46% of students were considered "below basic", 36% were at "basic" levels, 16% were considered "proficient", 2% were considered "advanced". 8th graders scored the same as they did 5 years ago whereas 12th graders scored worse.

The news is bad, but much of the news media managed to spin it positively. Although 4th graders did better, the average score was 151 out of 300, compared to 147 in 2000. Statistically better, yes....so percocious, kids these days. Another way to look at it is that 34% of 4th graders nationwide were "Below Basic" level, or 32% - according to this chart. There is a wide range across states reflecting a wide number of variables involved with such evaluations. In Mississippi 55% of the students are "below basic" level whereas in New Hampshire only 17% of students are below the "basic" level.

The Rocky Mountain News titled an article about the results, "Colorado Scores Above Average on National Science Tests". "Comfortably above", it embellished, although the state scored in the bottom two thirds of all states, and 26% of 4th graders and 34% of 8th graders failed to meet the "basic" standard.

Said the Boston Globe, "Vermont Among Top States in Science Test Results". "No other state had a higher score", the paper quoted Education Commissioner Richard Cate as saying, a statement that, if you look at the data, is patently incorrect. While most papers glossed over the pathetic showings, some took the results more seriously. The Chicago Tribune was harshly critical of Illinois. Illinois Kids Flunk Basic Science Test" is the title of their article. Despite the flogging, students in that state scored only one point below the average, no worse than 13 other states.

Scientists are Not Idols

The tests were voluntary, and several states did not participate, including Alaska, New York, Iowa, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Kansas. So what were people in doing when they freed up some time from studying science? New York claims they were tied up with No Child Left Behind Act testing requirements. A audience member who attended her third "American Idol" show at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles Tuesday night revealed what Kansas might be doing. "It's so exciting. Back in Kansas City, we have neighborhood parties up to the [Idol] finals.".

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

Science and American Idol were previously mentioned in Prioritizing Science Education, the Latest Report". Acronym Required comments occasionally on Science and Education.

We've heard that America is floundering in science and that even India and China graduate more engineers and are more dedicated to science than the U.S. We've read the reports.

We can argue that some of this may be bravado, for instance in India people sometimes brag to visitors that "all the doctors in America are from India". Though many are, some of this is nationalism speaking. Acronym Required previously commented on the international sport of berating American students in the article "A Fine Balance". The other day on NPR, a caller chastised American youth for being obsessed with movie stars, whereas in India, he said, kids were really focused on science and math. He did not mention that in India movie stars are sometimes elevated to gods.

Nor did he mention that sometimes those who work in Bollywood move on to Indian politics, just like the U.S. Sometimes they even progress to prestigious careers working at engineering schools (yet their Bollywood forays have a proud place on their resumes). There, in the U.S., sometimes they study the statistics about engineering graduates in the U.S., China, and India. Vivek Wadhwa wrote an article in BusinessWeek online this week; "About That Engineering Gap...", to correct previous statistics for the graduation rates that were widely reported in the media. The numbers for India and China were inflated because of reasons like varying interpretations of words like "engineer" and "degree", in different languages. By the author's count, the popularized statistics of 70,000 engineers graduates each year in the U.S., 350,000 in India and 600,000 in China are wrong. Rather 137,437 graduate from U.S. schools, 112,000 in India, and about 351,537 (loosely counting) graduate in China. The full report is published here at Duke, where the author now works.

Not that we should sigh in deep relief, slouch in our lazyboys with a bag of microwave popcorn and ogle over 'Desperate Housewives' - or whatever voyeuristic disaster tale is in play this week - while our kids plead for algebra help in the background. Yes, the spurious statistics were used in the recent National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine's report on science education (or lack of) in the U.S.. Acronym Required wrote about the report here. But those numbers are only a part of the picture, one of many indicators that the nation is struggling, some would say floundering, to successfully redefine its presence in science and technology education, employment and competitiveness. However the study's author disagrees:

"[O]ur higher education system isn't in trouble -- in fact, it's still the world's best. We spend the most on research, produce the most patents, have the most innovative curriculum, and educate many of the world's leaders."

He says that claiming we have a weak education system will only make it weak. Perhaps the U.S. needs coaching in "technology education" marketing? Surely this sort of publicity tromped around the globe could as valuable to general perceptions as the flawed and now sputtering pyrotechnics of "shock" and "awe".

We reported last week in Burning Bridges" that "The Numbers Guy" also wrote an column in the Wall Street Journal stating that the graduation numbers seemed suspect.

The journal Science reports this week that Southern Illinois University (SIU) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are possibly facing a suit by the Department of Justice unless they curtail a controversial scholarship program. SIU supports some graduates via the National Science Foundation's (NSF) "Bridge to Doctorate" scholarship program. "The Bridge To Doctorate" scholarship helps fund graduate minorities, women, and students with disabilities who study science and math. Science reports that the program is being targeted because it "engage[s] in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, nonpreferred minorities, and males". The University has previously been warned about three of its scholarships, according to the school paper, "The Daily Egyptian". The National Institute of Health NIH has a similiar "Bridges To Doctorate" program.

The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), comprised of members from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine suggests some tactics to advance the lagging science prowess of the U.S. Their recommendations are published here in PDF or paperback form, titled "Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing American for a Brighter Economic Future."

The National Academies press release for the study lists some of the actions they propose to stem what the committee views as decreased interest and competance in the U.S. for science and math. There are clear indicators of the nation's flagging abilities, they say:

• "For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India".
• "Last year chemical companies shuttered 70 facilities in the United States and have tagged 40 more for closure. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China".
• "U.S. 12th-graders recently performed below the international average for 21 countries on a test of general knowledge in mathematics and science".
• "In 1999 only 41 percent of U.S. eighth-graders had a math teacher who had majored in mathematics at the undergraduate or graduate level or studied the subject for teacher certification -- a figure that was considerably lower than the international average of 71 percent".
• "Last year more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China. In India, the figure was 350,000. In America, it was about 70,000".
• "In 2001 U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development".

The press release summarizes the recommendations of the report:

• "[T]he creation of a merit-based scholarship program to attract 10,000 exceptional students to math and science teaching careers each year. Four-year scholarships, worth up to $20,000 annually, should be designed to help some of the nation's top students obtain bachelor's degrees in physical or life sciences, engineering, or mathematics -- with concurrent certification as K-12 math and science teachers. After graduation, they would be required to work for at least five years in public schools..."
• "Policy-makers should increase the national investment in basic research by 10 percent each year over the next seven years."
• "Each year, policy-makers should provide 25,000 new, competitive four-year undergraduate scholarships and 5,000 new graduate fellowships to U.S. citizens enrolled in physical science, life science, engineering, and mathematics programs at U.S. colleges and universities."
• "Policy-makers should provide a one-year automatic visa extension that allows international students to remain in the United States to seek employment if they have received doctorates or the equivalent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or other fields of national need from qualified U.S. institutions."
• "Ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world for innovation. This can be accomplished by actions such as modernizing the U.S. patent system, realigning tax policies to encourage innovation, and ensuring affordable broadband Internet access, the report says."

The report outlines clear steps for improvement. Some are controversial, for instance there are international development issues to promoting a policy of siphoning off the most promising students from foreign countries, nevertheless, for the most part these seem straight forward. However, importantly, there is no sense of buy-in from many politicians. Thomas Friedman's New York Times today (accessible to subscribers), "Keeping Us in the Race", criticizes the administration's priorities:

"This is where President Bush should have focused his second term, instead of squandering it on a silly, ideological jag called Social Security privatization."

Friedman's admonishment seems mild and understated relative to the ballooning expenses of the administration's charge into the Iraq war and bullheaded insistence on tax cuts as well as its relentless rhetorical focus on terrorism and values. No doubt others have harsher criticism. In addition, the current guised creationist chatter and distracting court proceedings for teaching "alternative" theories of man's existence on earth do nothing to bolster public confidence in science. If anything a large swath of the population may be enboldened to eschew the challenges of learning science.

While it's clear that the administrations focus is not on education it's not clear what the public sees as administrations priorities. Purusing a series of polls over the last couple of years shows that while "economy and jobs" constantly rate as a worry to pollees, education generally is one of the last priorities, while gas and energy, terrorism, healthcare, Iraq and periodic crisises such as Hurricane Katrina are always prominent concerns. Interestingly "jobs" and "education" are always broken out as two separate priorities in the polls, which skews the fact that they are dependent upon each other. "Jobs" usually rates high and "education" rates low.

The agenda not only faces challenges from the administration and public perception, it doesn't seem that science holds the allure for students that it once did. While science and math are interesting pursuits, many undergraduates opt for easier and more lucrative paths in economics or business. Though it's a cynical view on these important goals, their choices aren't lazy they're sage. Just as it's savvy for businesses to off-shore technology and manufacturing, in kind, it's smart for undergraduates to recognize the often limited job opportunities and financial incentives to majoring in science as opposed to business. In a world where any young cool performer or slob with some Karaoke practice and a song can have a shot at launching a lucrative record career from "American Idol", wealth is king. There's no nobility to being a poor researcher renting the smallest house on the block in order to fund serial post-doc positions.

While science education and technical prowess is clearly important to scientists and ultimately to our nation's ability to compete, there seem to be more pressing priorities for the public, politicians, and students. We admit to being disheartened, but without serious political will we don't seem poised for any immediate attention to these goals. All indications are that the political priorities, both practical- budgetary and ideological, at the federal and state levels are attuned to other goals that either compete with or trump attention to science education and international competitiveness.

If one's science experiment or paper is "elegant", it arrives at the answer or explains a problem -- often one that has remained elusive for years -- with clear, insightful form that prompts smiles, admiration and sometimes chagrin from one's colleagues. Einstein's descriptions of matter and energy are perhaps quintessentially elegant, though the description no doubt underplays their significance. Physicist Brian Greene does justice to all his subjects as he eloquently walks through E=mc² and how Einstein's vision for physics described anew the relationships between mass, energy and the formation of the universe, in "That Famous Equation and You", published in yesterday's New York Times.

"But by September, confident in the result, Einstein wrote a three-page supplement to the June paper, publishing perhaps the most profound afterthought in the history of science. A hundred years ago this month, the final equation of his short article gave the world E = mc²."

The equation is well entrenched in our culture, it's faddish even, blithely plastered onto T-shirts and posters and paraphernalia for sale in campus stores. While many people wear the formula across their chests however, they often misconstrue its significance. Greene points out that Einstein actually published about M=E/c² and the paper emphasized the creation of mass from energy that Greene describes via a jousting scenario, not the creation of energy from mass associated with nuclear reactions. The equation describes not just the extraordinary energy reactions but ubiquitous, everyday ones:

"There is nothing you can do, not a move you can make, not a thought you can have, that doesn't tap directly into E = mc². Einstein's equation is constantly at work, providing an unseen hand that shapes the world into its familiar form..."

The theory reoriented how scientists thought about energy and led to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and then to Einstein's work to derive a "single theory encompassing all of nature's laws".

"For the better part of his last 30 years, Einstein pursued the "unified theory," but it stubbornly remained beyond his grasp. As the years passed, he became increasingly isolated; mainstream physics was concerned with prying apart the atom and paid little attention to Einstein's grandiose quest. In a 1942 letter, Einstein described himself as having become a "a lonely old man who is displayed now and then as a curiosity because he doesn't wear socks."

Today this work continues and it "is no curiosity - it is the driving force for many physicists of my generation", says Greene. Succinctly describing the formation of the universe is not trivial but the task has progressed significantly. Now scientists:

...[have] established beyond any doubt that a fraction of a second after creation (however that happened), the universe was filled with tremendous energy in the form of wildly moving exotic particles and radiation. Within a few minutes, this energy employed E = mc² to transform itself into more familiar matter - the simplest atoms - which, in the course of about a billion years, clumped into planets and stars."

"During the 13 billion years that have followed, stars have used E = mc² to transform their mass back into energy in the form of heat and light; about five billion years ago, our closest star - the sun - began to shine, and the heat and light generated was essential to the formation of life on our planet."

It's good to be reminded of this "unseen hand" that is so often subordinated to some distorted permutation of the "invisible hand". While the latter is used to press us on in our daily chores, when we understand the former we are put in our place and reminded of the relative power of each.

Obviously the excerpts cannot do justice to the article, located here. The author's research is in the area of string theory and he has written a couple of books including the well-reviewed popular science book The Elegant Universe.

Oliver Wrede noted that there are three major universities with weblog initiatives, as of May 2004:

• Harvard University: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/
• Stanford University: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/itss/projects/blog/
• University of Minnesota: http://blog.