Science, politics, and...

OK, last blog for today... I am trying to catch up on all the things I wanted to blog on since Dec.!

First, over the holidays I signed on--and so should ALL MY FANS IN CYBERVILLE (both of you)--to ScienceDebate2008, a website and group dedicated to having the presidential candidates do a debate specifically on science and science policy:

"Science and engineering have driven half the nation’s growth in GDP over the last half-century, and lie at the center of many of the major policy and economic challenges the next president will face. We feel that a presidential debate on science would be helpful to America’s national political dialogue." -Alan Leshner, CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Personally, I think "helpful" is an understatement--given the HUGE advances in cell biology, genetics, and bioinformatics over the past few months (!), a forum of candidate's views on science, health, education, and the like is essential in helping voters chart both their potential candidates views as well as their own--Americans who live in ignorance of these advances will no doubt be shocked when the political and ethical dimensions of these advances suddenly become thrust into media life, no doubt attached to either a terrorism or celebrity story. We ALL need to be more aware and proactive in policy consideration before we are forced to confront these issues!

One that has always annoyed me is that genes are one of the few (only?) "facts of nature" that the US Patent Office allows for patenting. As a result, some of the tests that might shed light on the origins of my son's leukodystrophy might cost a few hundred bucks in supplies and technician time, but cost several thousand dollars in royalties to a biotech company, simply because they "discovered" a set of genes before others have. What if Newton had patented (had he been able) calculus? What if Einstein had patented his work that led to the development of the Atomic Bomb?!? Issues of intellectual property rights are tied hard and fast to ethical, economic, and societal concerns, and are getting more so by the day. Without a president with a realistic understanding of science and technology (something America has often lacked, not just currently), we face more difficult times ahead than we would otherwise. The advances in science and technology WILL shape the world of the near future, and it behooves all of us to ensure we are more proactive in anticipating the profound changes these advances will bring to our lives and livelihoods. Start by signing on ScienceDebate2008!

On a closely related note, a few interesting (and stupid) things have popped up in the media recently associated with the not-quite-dead-yet vacuous collection of ideas called intelligent design. For one, the Institute for Creation Research’s graduate school is proposing a Master's Degree in Science Education in Texas. The Dallas Morning News bashed that idea in an editorial, rightly pointing out that:

"The board's job is to certify institutions as competent to teach science in Texas schools. Despite the institute including mainstream science in its programs, it's hard to see how a school that rejects so many fundamental principles of science can be trusted to produce teachers who faithfully teach the state's curriculum."

The ICR's request is scheduled to be heard at Texas' Higher Education board in late April; meanwhile, the board states that it is seeking further information about the curriculum from both the ICR and a panel of science educators and scientists. Once again, Texas is trying really hard to be the laughingstock of the world--as if it needs more cause.

One of the most annoying aspects of all this intelligent design bs is that thoughful people from all sides of the political and religious spectrum have weighed in against it, and the numbskulls who support it still can't wrap their measly brains around the problems their stance causes to their very own beliefs. Mac Johnson, a self-professed conservative and blogger at a conservative blogsite, Human Events, comments in a recent post that

"I, for one, have religiously ignored the topic before now. I have done this partly out of a sort of professional courtesy to its supporters, with whom I share most other beliefs (and in many cases a personal affection), partly out of a belief that the idea was too obscure to argue over, and partly because the idea is so patently ridiculous to me that I felt that pointing this out would be somewhat akin to telling a friend that they have really, really bad breath. I mean - it would be an uncomfortable moment for both of us. But then how will they ever know, if I don’t tell them?"

Johnson, who is a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry, has perhaps one of the best critiques of the ID idea I have ever read. Towards the end of the post, he lays out his own belief:

"The proponents of ID may claim that evolution is an un-provable abstraction that cannot be witnessed in real life, but for some of us, evolution is real enough to harass us at work on a fairly regular basis. And as a matter of religion, ID is offensive to me in the lack of faith it demonstrates on the part of its proponents. I believe in God. My belief in Him is not dependent upon his being the motive force in developing shorter dandelion varieties for lawns and longer varieties for roadsides. I am not sure what God is. I am not sure what His role in this world is. But I am sure He is... To believe in both evolution and God is truly to believe in the marvel of marvels. To believe in Intelligent Design is something less than the marvel of marvels –quite a bit less. Intelligent Design is The DaVinci Code of Biology -- an emotionally attractive conspiracy theory that seems to explain the most amazing facts and coincidences. But in the end, it’s just not true, and worse yet, it gets one no closer to God. That’s all fine for an entertaining diversion, but it’s a poor base upon which to build either a factual or theological worldview. Intelligent Design is a bad idea, and the otherwise intelligent men that are espousing it would do well to re-examine their beliefs, before they corrupt both science and faith --and the amazing progress that conservatism has made during the last forty years."

Quite a statement, eh? For any number of reasons... Well, regardless of your political bent, his commentary is well worth the read.