Friday, June 16, 2017
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Scientists don't do universal good.
Take Fritz Haber, for example. He invented the technique for synthesizing ammonia, which has been invaluable to agriculture. The food production for half the world's population depends on his method for producing nitrogen fertilizers. But he was also the "Father of Chemical Warfare". Hmm...
But it is easy to show that science is what propels technological development and that government-funded science is essential for this, so it is baffling why the administration want to cut the science budget of NIH by 22%, DOE by 15% and NSF by 13%. Yes, I know they want to cut overhead grants, and a sensible discussion about that is always useful, but who would then build the buildings in which science is done?
Are they doing it just to save money? In fact I might consider myself more of a fiscal conservative than most Republican politicians. Why? Because I would be in favor of keeping both the military and mandatory elements of the federal budget under control, whereas they wish to inflate the former (through blind ideology) and ignore the latter (through fear of losing votes).
Let's hope the Congress does its job and reverses this policy. As President Obama said in 2011, cutting investment in innovation is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engines. It may make you feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't be long before you feel the impact.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Did ancient astronauts perambulate on Earth? Does the Full Moon influence human behavior?
Do we need medicine to be evidence-based; or should we try some colon cleansing, or a detox, or faith healing, or homeopathy, or Ayurveda based on quantum mysticism?
In the absence of facts and proof, people need something to cling on to, something to believe in. That's normal, and has historically determined a large part of human behavior. But in the last couple of centuries a discipline has been embraced that can separate fact from fiction: science. Science tells us what the result will be when the natural world is acted on in a certain way - what happens if we strike a ball, or mix chemicals together - and often tells us why, in a logical, theoretical framework.
The West embraced science, and it fueled the technological revolution of the last century. But there is much more to do; we need to cure harmful diseases, find efficient, non-polluting forms of energy, new materials, and to understand the environment.
But since I have been back in the USA, i.e., for the last 10 years, reason, in general, and science, in particular, have been under particularly strong attack, from people who can't accept proven facts. They are denying the science because it doesn't fit their beliefs or feelings or desires.
- Many people still don't believe in evolution; others think GMO is dangerous.
- Many people don't believe in climate change; others think vaccines are dangerous.
- Many people believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old; others believe in astrology.
These beliefs don't tally with the demonstrated facts, and so people believing them live at least to some degree in an alternate reality.
The problem is that more and more people in power in the USA are not accepting these facts as well. They are ignoring established facts in setting policy, and sometimes don't even want the truth to be determined, and so they advocate axing the science research programs that find the facts out.
Take climate change. Arguing what, if anything, to do about it is one thing. That is politics.
Denying that it exists, or saying you don't want to know whether it exists (which is effectively what stopping climate research would do) is another. That is dangerous.
And the same goes for other critical issues in health, technology, energy and the environment.
Now, I am probably not going to March for Science on Saturday, mainly because the marches do not appear to be just for science, but for other issues as well, such as diversity, inclusion, equity etc; and in choosing Earth Day they seem to be choosing which science they support most. Not that I disagree with these other issues per se, but I think that they are complicated and deserve separate consideration.
More importantly, though: welcome back to ignorance, America; I guess you were never very far away from us.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
So Theresa May has called a snap general election in the UK. A sorry affair. Sadly, she will have scant opposition. This is regretful, given her stance destroying Britain's relationship with Europe. The British only very narrowly (52:48) voted to leave the EU. This means that, of the various choices, a Soft Brexit should have been pursued, in which the free trade area is maintained. In contrast, though, May and her cohort have insisted on a Hard Brexit, effectively cutting all ties, which will do irreparable damage to the UK. This is clearly against the will of the people.
But opposition to her party has imploded. The Labour party is useless, failing to oppose Brexit, and with a deeply unpopular Marxist leader who even his own parliamentarians hate. Nationalist UKIP has no further reason to exist. The Lib Dems, the only politicians talking any sense these days, will profit but are a tiny parliamentary party.
Things look grim in the Sceptered Isle.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Well, the soccer team that I have fervently supported since I was 6 months old (ahem!) has gone down the tubes. Norwich City, languishing in the hinterlands of the English Second Division, has now lost all hope of promotion back into the limelight this year, has fired their coach and, even worse, failed to beat our sweet, dear associates Ipswich Town, even though this time I was there to see them. Inconsiderate!!
In the meantime a new entity has been born, bloomed, expanded and is enticing us.
The newest MLS franchise. 55,000 fans at the inaugural game.
The chance to give those Red Bulls a good licking.
Just 3 1/2 hours down the interstate.
Hmmm.......City or United? Will allegiance here be threatened?.....