Science yes, but to what end?

Alright, this has been a pretty pro-science blog and that is more or less by design. Science and technology have brought lots of great things into our modern lives. I really don't want to imagine a world without indoor plumbing and vaccinations to name just a couple. Above and beyond just practical applications, scientific reasoning has increased by leaps and bounds humanity's understanding of the world.

It is not 100% positive though, most technologies are a mixed blessing. Let's take for example, our friend the airplane, in just over a century of flight, it has really transformed the way people from technologically advanced countries think of distance. It can also really be a help, loaded full of relief supplies and personnel, it can speed up the recovery from natural disasters and the like. On the down side, the same airplanes could be filled with soldiers to invade a country or hijacked by fundamentalist chuckle heads and smashed into buildings. To take an example from more recent headlines, an airplane could seal a hundred or more people in a flying aluminum can with a carrier of swine flu and deposit all those people several hundred miles from where started to distribute the virus to a whole different geographic region. The point I am trying to make is that science and technology too often taken into our lives without critically analyzing the full effects down the line.

Another point to make here is that science if great, science as the obedient lapdog of business and industry, not so good. If you want to go into medicine, great but try and model your career more after Jonas Salk than after the team of pill pushing ninnies who brought you Cialis. If you want to be an engineer, look to the people who designed the H2 and H3 Hummers as a cautionary tale, not as role models.

Continuing with the polemic rant, next up is the scientific world view. While it is certainly preferable to the world view that produced the Spanish Inquisition (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition) the scientific world view does have a disturbing habit if devaluing any other way of knowing. Forget all your traditional lore, historical place knowledge and things like that, all that stuff is devoid of value unless it can be quantitatively verified by somebody in a white lab coat with a clip board and advanced degrees from a properly accredited institution. Of course, a lot of this is more a problem with how science is done in modern society than with the idea of a scientific understanding of the world. If you stop and think about it, it an expert comes forth and says do X, a scientific society would look at their research, try and reproduce their experiments and then, maybe, if they came up with similar findings, they would go along with X. That is not what happens most of the time. More often the expert is taken at their word because the social institutions of science and technology are losing their ability to be self critical.

In conclusion, be skeptical of new technology, don't trust a businessman further than you can throw them, and be sure to tell the next expert you are confronted by that they are full of bologna.

Q&A with Dr. Kirsten Sanford of This Week In Science

Dr. Sanford is the founder and co-host of the This Week In Science radio program, among other things. To find out more about the scope of her work, . . . you are just going to have to read to the end of the blog entry.

Here, we'll treat this question like it's the first day of a graduate seminar. Could you introduce yourself to the group and talk a bit about your educational background and research interests?

I hold a B.S. in Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology and a Ph.D. in Molecular, Cellular and Integrative Physiology from U.C. Davis, and am a specialist in learning and memory. I originally thought that I wanted to work for Greenpeace and save the whales, but I realized that was more interested in birds. I got a job as an undergraduate working in a lab that dealt with avian learning and memory, and I was hooked. From there I decided to go to grad school and follow my dreams of looking at bird brains, but along the way I realized that I enjoy teaching science more than being in the lab. So, I finished my PhD on bird spatial memory abilities, not with the intention of continuing in academia, but instead of finding new and different ways of talking to the public about science.

Talk about This Week In Science and how you came to be involved in the show.

I am the founder of This Week in Science, a weekly radio show broadcast from U.C. Davis and avidly followed by thousands of fans worldwide via rss feed. TWIS evolved naturally from late night beer-fueled conversations between myself and my friend (and co-founder) Ted Dunning. We used to stay up late at night discussing recent scientific discoveries, and one night I said, "Hey! I know the program director at the campus radio station. Maybe we can do this on the radio." And, the show was born.

What do you hope the impact of TWIS is?

I hope TWIS reaches people who at some point in their lives decided that they "hate science," or that science is "too hard" for them, and gets them to reconsider. I want TWIS to get people excited about science, and tear down the perception that science is only for "scientists." I once received an email from a listener who had quit school for whatever reason. He said that TWIS convinced him to go back to school and get a science degree. That is the best impact I could ever hope for.

This Week In Science actually goes out over the radio waves. Any thoughts about how science and technology are treated in the, "traditional media?"

Technology gets much better treatment than science by the traditional media. Science news if it is found in the traditional media consists of health and medical coverage and news relating to the strange or spectacular. Then, the average coverage consists of a regurgitated press release. Traditional media's lack of support for science is resulting in poorer and poorer coverage. There was a time when all major newspapers had a science section with fantastic writers covering interesting topics, but those days are over.

In addition to podcasting and providing a streaming version of TWIS, you are a blogger, vlogger even. What role do you see, "New Media," playing in facilitating scientific literacy in society in general?

Science is lacking in the traditional media. To get science reporting you have to go to specialized science publications. Newspapers are closing their science sections. CNN dissolved its science department. The future of science media is in new media. I've almost given up on the traditional distributors.
Unfortunately, new media doesn't allow a "mainstreaming" of science information. The information is fragmented, which will make it harder for people to access. Those who want science will find it, but it won't be generally available unless something is done to change the path we are on.

How do you think that increased scientific literacy can improve the functioning of a democracy?

I think that an informed populous is better able to make the decisions necessary for a democracy to function. Along with scientific literacy come critical thinking skills, which are essential for individuals to evaluate the information that surrounds them. If people continue to vote without thinking critically about the issues before them, we will not truly live in a democracy.
Who do you vote for? Why? Do you vote yes or no on a stem cell funding issue? What about water and agricultural regulations? How do you assess the possible options without some amount of knowledge and insight?
I vote for the people I think best represent the interests of the people. Predominantly, that means I vote Democrat, but I am somewhere between a Libertarian and a Progressive. I think the people are best served by a government that functions to protect them from harm. I voted yes on the stem cell funding issue. Water and agriculture regulations depend on the regulation. Fresh water is a scarce commodity, especially in California, and needs to be preserved for both people and agriculture. It is an issue of need, not desire.
I assess the possible options by doing some research. I try to find out who is for and against an option, and why. I talk to people. I read literature. I educate myself as fully as possible, and knowing that I can never fully understand an issue I am not immersed in, I use my best judgment.

Do you think that advancements in science and technology can impair, in any way, the functioning of a democracy?

I think that advancements in science and tech so far have benefited the functioning of our democracy. Never before have the youth been so involved in government as now in this age of the internet. Basic science led to the development of technology that now allows ever greater sharing of information. With that sharing of information, people are more able to understand the issues facing the government, and to be involved in helping to make decisions in an informed way. That is a real democracy.
The only way that advancing science and technology will impair the democracy is if the people allow the government to use that technology in such a way as to block the will of the people or stifle the people. But, then it will no longer be a democracy.

In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that he would, "restore science to its rightful place." If you were given an opportunity to talk to him about science, technology and education, what would you say?

I would talk to him about the importance of educating not only the children about science, but also interesting adults in science. If adults find science interesting and seek out science-based events or activities, this interest will be passed on to the children. Children learn from the adult role models around them. When a mother helping her daughter with her math homework (or, insert science for math) says to her daughter, "Oh, I never liked math... math's hard," it instills similar feelings in the child. We need to create a positive environment for science, math, and knowledge in general. When excitement builds around learning, it will only help our nation excel.

On your blog, you declare yourself a Tae Kwon Do black belt. Do you find yourself facing the, "so, you think you can kick my butt," question a lot?

Every once in a while I find myself facing that question. I never have to prove anything because I have bodyguards. Although, I did once kick someone on top of the head just for fun.

Finally, anything important I missed? Any shameless self promos you need to get out there?

In 2005, I was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science Mass Media Science & Engineering. Following the fellowship, I worked as a television news producer at WNBC in New York City with noted health and science reporter Dr. Max Gomez. In late 2007 and early 2008, I expanded my communications work into online video, starring in both On Networks successful series Food Science and Revision3's variety show PopSiren. I also appear regularly on Revision3's Systm, and hosted MacBreak during the PixelCorp's coverage of the 2008 and 2009 MacWorld conference. I am launching my newest online video venture, Science Word, in March, 2009. Additionally, I host Potential Energy, a podcast about alternative energy concerns and solutions, and am a regular guest on both This Week in Media and This Week in Tech. I contribute weekly to Skepticblog.org and to my own blog, KirstenSanford.com, and am looking to launch a new scientific media venture with noted technology pundit, Leo Laporte. These new media efforts initiated my entry into television in 2008. Pending purchase of the pilot, I am slated to co-host a new, skeptical reality TV show called The Skeptologists. I am also reporter-at-large for the Science Channel and a contributor to their recently launched show, Brink, and have appeared on CBS's The Doctors.

I'd like to thank Dr. Sanford for taking the time to chime in with her insights. For those of you out there who are disappointed at the lack of clickable links in the blog entry so far:

This Week In Science

Potential Energy

This Week In Media

This Week In Tech

Skepticblog

KirstenSanford.com

The Skeptologists

Who's science is it anyway?

In the February 24th issue of the New York Times (ancient history by blog-o-sphere standards), John Tierney penned an article titled, Politics in the Guise of Pure Science. In this article, Mr. Tierney discusses how scientists are prone to viewing themselves as either an aloof researcher, far above the concerns of the day, or as an impartial arbiter, interpreting groundbreaking science for the uneducated masses. Neither caricature is an accurate portrayal of the role scientists play in the political arena. Scientists will identify themselves as speaking for "science," to lend credibility to their political stance and to undermine the positions of their political opponents. At other times they will exaggerate their findings in order to steer the political debate in a direction more agreeable to their beliefs.

In the March 10th edition, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote about how, Obama Puts His Own Spin on the Mix of Science With Politics. President Obama has directed the federal bureaucracy to select science advisers based on expertise and not ideology. This came amidst the reversal of the Bush administration's policy on stem cell research. The article continued to discuss the censorship of science under the Bush administration and contained the stock defense of the policies from the political right. Quoting Karl Rove may have been a subtle attempt to discredit the right wing defense of the treatment of science during the Bush years.

Both of the articles address the question as to the role of science in a democracy. One would have to be naive or extremely partisan to not admit that science took a back seat to party politics during the Bush years. Now the big question is, will science be taken seriously in the Obama administration or will it simply be that scientific voices that are in harmony with the political wind of the time will be heard? Perhaps it would be better for public dialogue if everyone admitted that science does not speak with one voice, not would you want it to, and that all scientists have biases and preconceptions, not matter how hard they may work to overcome them.

It is difficult to find the proper place for science in a modern democracy. Clearly, placing science as the final arbiter to truth and the direction of public policy is not the answer. You simply have to look back at the eugenics movement or phrenology to see how science can be disturbingly wrong. While science is usually self correcting in the long term, for the time frame public policy is shaped in, other factors need to be there to temper cold, analytical science.

Also, the role of the expert is problematic. With all the specialization in the arena of science and in society in general, experts are just a fact of life. It's just not possible to know everything anymore. So taking the advice of experts in one field or another is often unavoidable, in optimal conditions it is even desirable. The downside is that when you have fraudulent scientists for hire that will work backwards from their results to justify whatever political position you happen to have, the role of the expert becomes tainted. Having disingenuous people out there who will say that anthropogenic global warming is not happening in exchange for a generous enough research grant, it casts a shadow of doubt over all expert opinions. While I would like to present a quick and witty solution to this problem, I instead leave you with a famous X-files quote, "Trust no one."