Entries Tagged 'Science' ↓

There was a bit of discussion a while back on liberal bias in academia (see Megan McArdle, the Daily Kos [turns out they still exist], and James Rament as a sample).

I’m late to this party, but I’ll point out one thing that has struck me again and again in the academic medium: anti-science beliefs that are seen to be of the right are a proof of one being a retrograde Neanderthal. I’ve had many discussions on whether you should grant someone a PhD if they profess to disbelieve evolution. On the other hand, anti-science beliefs that are seen to be of the left are generally proof of a few character quirks. I’ve never had a discussion on whether someone who believes that there is a link between vaccines and autism should be denied a PhD.

There is this game I sometimes play when someone starts complaining that conservatives are anti-science: I try to get them to be anti-science in under 60 seconds. I generally succeed by bringing up vaccines or GMOs. I’ve had people go from complaining how awfully anti-science Republicans are to talking about force fields that are activated through homeopathic medication (or some sort of New Agey b.s.) in a few seconds. Some people can, without any hint of irony, say, in rapid succession “climate change is real, you cannot seriously deny the broad scientific consensus” and “scientist agree that genetically modified organisms are safe for consumption, but they are all ideologues.”

These are not symbolic issues, either. The anti-vaccine movement kills children. Theirs and others, innocent bystanders. They are much more deadly than the creationist crowd.

*

On both sides, there is a lot of motivated cognition with science generally being defended where people thinks it helps their side (no matter how fuzzy the logical link).

When Wakefield, of vaccines cause autism fame, was last in the news; the liberal Huffington Post had Jenna McCarthy, an anti-vaccine crusader, while the libertarian econtalk had Brian Deer who had exposed some of Wakefield’s tactics.

There was a bit of discussion a while back on liberal bias in academia (see Megan McArdle, the Daily Kos , and James Rament as a sample). I'm late to this party, but I'll point out one thing that has struck me again and again in the academic medium: anti-science beliefs ...

From Science Magazine:

Brian McCabe and Jennifer Heerwig, sociology students at New York University in New York City, used statistical tools to unmask covert attitudes. They asked their control group of 500 people point blank whether they would vote for an African-American president, and 84% said yes—a lower percentage than other polls. McCabe and Heerwig attribute the difference to greater privacy: Their survey was taken over the Internet. They asked the second group three questions unrelated to race, such as whether presidential campaigns are too costly. The third group was asked those same three questions, plus a fourth about whether they’d vote for an African-American candidate. McCabe and Heerwig [asked] only how many statements the respondents in those two groups agreed with, not which ones. “If you have a socially undesirable answer, you can hide it,” says McCabe. With some statistical analysis, they determined that assuming the three groups were similar, 14% of their first cohort lied, and in truth just 70% would support an African-American. Democrats were much more likely to be dishonest than Republicans, proffering up the socially desirable answer, as were those with less education.

Very nice work. I agree with the authors on their assertion that this might not matter that much for the actual election in a month, so this gets the tag Science and not Politics.

Here’s the original paper. Here’s an interview with the author of the paper.

From Science Magazine: Brian McCabe and Jennifer Heerwig, sociology students at New York University in New York City, used statistical tools to unmask covert attitudes. They asked their control group of 500 people point blank whether they would vote for an African-American president, and 84% said yes—a lower percentage than other polls. McCabe and Heerwig ...

From the ongoing series the destruction of fisheries is the big unacknowledged environmental catastrophe of today:

An article in this week’s Science Magazine argues that a simple solution works: privatise the fisheries:

Although the potentially harmful consequences of mismanaged fisheries were forecast over 50 years ago (1, 2), evidence of global declines has only been seen quite recently. Reports show increasing human impacts (3) and global collapses in large predatory fishes (4) and other trophic levels (5) in all large marine ecosystems (LMEs) (6). It is now widely believed that these collapses are primarily the result of the mismanagement of fisheries.

[...]

Rather than only setting industry-wide quotas, fishermen are allocated individual rights. Referred to as catch shares or dedicated access privileges, these rights can be manifest as individual (and tradable) harvest quotas, cooperatives, or exclusive spatial harvest rights; the idea is to provide—to fishermen, communities, or cooperatives—a secure asset, which confers stewardship incentives.

[...]

By examining 11,135 global fisheries, we found a strong link: By 2003, the fraction of ITQ-managed [individual transferable quotas] fisheries that were collapsed was about half that of non-ITQ fisheries. This result probably underestimates ITQ benefits, because most ITQ fisheries are young.

Guess what, privatisation works for fisheries too.

From the ongoing series the destruction of fisheries is the big unacknowledged environmental catastrophe of today: An article in this week's Science Magazine argues that a simple solution works: privatise the fisheries: Although the potentially harmful consequences of mismanaged fisheries were forecast over 50 years ago (1, 2), evidence of global declines has only ...

In this week’s Science:

The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV). Critics had argued that the data looked too good to be real, and in May a university investigation agreed, concluding that data in both studies had been fabricated and that the papers should be retracted.

Unfortunately, this won’t put a stop to the ignorant scare-mongering, but it might shame those who should know better into not spreading superstition.

In this week's Science: The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV). Critics had argued that the data looked too good to be real, and in May a university investigation ...

I drive a grad student’s car, a 15-year old Toyota Camry. I get 32 mpg on the highway. The new non-hybrid Camrys are being advertised as getting 31 mpg highway driving.

I drive a grad student's car, a 15-year old Toyota Camry. I get 32 mpg on the highway. The new non-hybrid Camrys are being advertised as getting 31 mpg highway driving.

From PLoS Biology, a paper which asks the question Is Sleep Essential?

The authors find that there is no solid report of an animal that does not sleep at all. The bullfrog is often cited as an example of a sleepless animal, but the evidence is old and needs revisiting.

Dolphins sleep half a brain at a time (one hemisphere sleeps while the other stays awake). This strongly suggests that sleep is important (and not just a type of resting). Why else would such a complex mechanism have evolved?

In general, reading this paper, it’s surprising how little we understand about sleep. Should we still be arguing whether animals sleep?

From PLoS Biology, a paper which asks the question Is Sleep Essential? The authors find that there is no solid report of an animal that does not sleep at all. The bullfrog is often cited as an example of a sleepless animal, but the evidence is old and needs revisiting. Dolphins sleep half a brain at ...