NASW: Tuesday

Tuesday those who were already in town attended one of two field trips. I went on the museum field trip.

We began by visiting the new Marian Koshland Science Museum, where we started with a lecture detailing how they designed the museum and the goals they had in doing so. Interestingly, this museum is gathering some data for scientific analysis, rather than just displaying what is already known for the perusal of guests. The data pertains, in fact, to interactions with the guests.

After the lecture, we were separated into groups according to topic. Each group had an hour to design an exhibit on their topic, and then after a brief break, we presented our plans. It was an informative experience. I've wondered at times what it would be like to work at a science museum. This gave me a sense of how much fun it could be.

Once these presentations were concluded, we proceeded to the International Spy Museum, which we toured in the usual fashion. Although we had two hours, I didn't find that I had enough time to cover all of the exhibits I was hoping to see before I left -- even though I skipped those which did not interest me. It was an educational visit, and I learned a lot about espionage throughout history. As one might expect, parts of the museum were cheesy, but nonetheless, fun.

I don't know what happened on the other field trip, but I'd say that although the afternoon was fun and informative, I wouldn't break my neck to make it to the field trips next year -- if I can, great, but if I can't, I won't.

NASW: Wednesday, 1 of 5 -- Plenary lecture on the interactions between politics and science

Moderator
Joanne Silberner, Health-Policy Correspondent, National Public Radio

Speakers
Rita Colwell, Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Maryland and Former Director, National Science Foundation

John H. Marburger III, Director, United States Office of Science and Technology Policy (Science Advisor to the president)

Congressman Henry Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, House Government Reform Committee; Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Waxman is a democrat who has worked closely with the Union of Concerned Scientists. They presented a report today to congress (if I understood correctly) about trends in science policy in the current administration, which they feel are cause for concern.

According to Waxman, the freedoms of scientists are being severely impinged upon. He listed several examples, which included:

• Several scientists being interviewed for advisory committees being asked who they voted for, what party they belong to, and/or their stance on abortion; although organizers are supposed to ensure that advisory committees have a balanced selection of members who will represent all sides, no previous administration has done this before.
  
• One scientist who expressed dissenting views (I believe on stem cell research or abortion rights) was asked to leave their committee
  
• A number of experts in a field recommended one scientist as the foremost expert in the field. But instead, a medical doctor with extreme religious right leanings was appointed. According to Waxman, this man had "scant qualifications" -- the only claim he has to expertise on birth control is a book he wrote about women's relationship with god when pregnant and considering abortion. If a balanced committee is the goal of the administration, Waxman believes they would have chosen any number of republican experts who are qualified.
  
• Although the advisory committee on Plan B concluded unanimously that it was safe, the FDA did not approve it for use. He points out that the FDA's role is to approve drugs based on their safety -- not to determine policy based on ethical or moral judgements. If the administration disapproves of the use of Plan B for moral or ethical reasons, they should go through the usual legislative channels.
  
• There has been cases of scientists being asked to suppress, downplay, or even reinterpret results or data.

The administration's response to this report asserted that it was spurious, fallacious, and illogical. When Waxman wrote a letter to Marburger asking for corroboration for those accusations, the response was a short paragraph stating, "I've already told you that, so I don't see why I should tell you again."

At the plenary session, Marburger did not respond further to the letter. He did, however, tell portions of his side of the story. Although I tried hard to approach his words with an open mind -- after all, he is a professor of physics, and so I feel a certain kinship to him -- I had difficulty, in the end, accepting his arguments.

Essentially, he explained that the social sciences and medical sciences are "soft" sciences. That is, the research, studies, and experiments which tend to relate to controversial topics do not yield certain results, for the most part. The data must be interpreted, and in that interpretation lies the possibility for differing points of view, sometimes influenced by bias. According to Marburger, many of the differences in opinion Waxman cites are simply cases of different, but equally valid, interpretations of the same data.

As a physicist, I admit to the occasional past snobbery putting down the softer sciences. Nonetheless, just because the most likely explanation for a data set has a twenty or thirty percent chance of being wrong, or because there are alternative explanations which one out of ten scientists suggest, does not mean that it is wrong, or that the alternative explanation is correct. Certainly, alternative explanations are rarely, if ever, equally likely, and uncertainty does not mean that it is a matter of opinion.

Nor does this justify the subversion of committees, positions, and organizations which are intended to be ethically and morally neutral. This is just one of the complaints to which Marburger had no satisfactory answer, or gives no answer at all.

More later... part 2 of 5 will discuss the first workshop I attended yesterday, where researchers discussed preliminary results regarding studies on how journalists frame science news as discoveries or products proceed from first blush to full public awareness through the years. Also, how the general public filter the information they read in science articles.

Feline divinity and keyboards: PawSense

ganked from digitalsidhe, I was going to run this on a site I write for. Unfortunately, the editor felt it was too old, so I'll just post it here for your amusement.

I'm sure many of you have experienced the delights of having a feline owner to coddle and worship. And, while they enjoy our attentions, they could care less when they disrupt our lives.

A personal favorite is the hacker cat, or perhaps I should say h4xx0r c4t. Although they are the image of silky grace when they pad across our keyboards, all sorts of interesting things can happen to our (comparatively unimportant) work when they do so. And by interesting, I do mean bad.

Bitboost, however, now brings us the solution to this not-so-ageless quandary with a program called PawSense. According to their site, this program will detect cat-like typing and lock your computer. It will even play a loud, discordant sound to help train the dastardly feline that walking on your keyboard is a Bad Idea.

Unfortunately for those who enjoy both felines and Apples, Bitboost apparently feels that Apple owners defile their feline gods. Or perhaps, they haven't gotten around to writing a version for Macs.

http://www.bitboost.com/pawsense/