The perfect gene sequence ... CAT - GAG

Beautiful in it's simplicity.

Science shouldn't be politicized.

It's a vital part of teaching ... helping students develop a healthy skepticism about what they see and hear. I show them videos, ads, other things and we dissect and analyze them in class. It's probably what I'll do tomorrow during the last day of school before break. I pick on the quacks, mostly: iRenew bracelets, QRay bracelet, Kinoki Footpads, Dr Marks Ion Cleanse Detoxifying foot baths, etc. Of course, during this process there is the inevitable question of global warming. It's with this in mind that I ran across the following article and thought I'd share.

From the Albany Times Union, Science shouldn't be clouded by politics
By Randy Simon

Is there solid evidence that the earth's average temperature is getting warmer, mostly as a result of human activity? What do you think?

Before answering, consider these scientific questions:

• Has coronary CT angiography made coronary catheterization obsolete?
• Are the hotspots in the earth's crust explained by phenomena in the upper mantle rather than in the earth's core?
• Can molecules exhibit intrinsic electronic functionality?
• Is lactose intolerance a genetic inherited trait? 

(to which I'd add "Will the Large Hadron Collider destroy the Earth when turned on?" and "Why won't value-added measures work to instantly maximize our schools' performances?" "Vaccines cause autism and backwards walking in cheerleaders.")

You probably are thinking: "How am I supposed to know?" That is, unless you are a cardiologist, geologist, condensed matter physicist or geneticist, or at least someone highly informed about these disciplines. These questions are in fact quite controversial in their respective fields, meaning that there is considerable disagreement among the experts.

Yet, you were probably all set to offer your opinion on global warming although you are not a climate scientist and are undoubtedly not well-versed in that discipline either. Furthermore, the question posed is not even controversial among experts in the field; there is overwhelming agreement that the answer is "yes."

So what gives here?

The answer is that you can't get opinions about most scientific questions from pundits and politicians but you can't avoid getting opinions on global warming from them.

Would you make decisions on how to treat a heart arrhythmia based on what a talk radio host believes? Would you have a senatorial candidate evaluate an aircraft design instead of an aeronautical engineer? Of course not. They aren't experts.

Clearly, we have come to believe -- or at least to act as if we believe -- that there are two kinds of scientists in the world.

There are those who work on a myriad of topics that have managed not to become political issues. They are obviously highly intelligent and accomplished individuals who have brought us brain surgery, iPads and the Space Shuttle.

Then there are those who work in areas that have become the subject of political and/or religious attention -- such as climate change and evolution -- and they are apparently dishonest, confused and deficient in their knowledge.

We are not becoming a society of Luddites; we surely want the fruits of modern science in our lives. Instead, we divide science into "good science" and "bad science" and allow partisan politics to make the distinction. It would be humorous if it were not alarming.

The political debate about global warming is fueled in part by scientists who take the position that the phenomenon does not exist, or at least that it isn't a result of human activity, or that it cannot be remediated by human intervention. This is no more compelling than the arguments in the 1960s and 1970s by a few medical doctors claiming that cigarette smoking was harmless. Indeed, there are always scientists with differing opinions on any topic.

When the overwhelming majority of scientists observe the same phenomena and draw the same conclusions, there are abundant reasons to take them seriously. The fact that we don't like the results (or even worse, political dogma doesn't like them) should not matter.

Could the majority opinion be wrong? Absolutely. But ignoring that opinion because you don't like it is foolishness.

Every day we trust our lives to the fruits of modern science. Medical technology, aircraft design, structural engineering and many other disciplines impact our safety and our very survival and, by and large, we feel that we can count on them.

Yet, when thousands of climate experts around the world draw serious conclusions from a wealth of data, we reject those conclusions because of our politics. It is nothing less than astonishing.

Perhaps you are not surprised by this at all. Some may see this discussion as an analysis of current attitudes toward science but others, I suppose, will cast it aside as "left-wing propaganda." And that, I suppose, is the problem in a nutshell.

One of the comments on this article was "We all have daily experience with weather, and through experience, with climate. To have some understanding of climate and none about the other issues is not surprising."

Really?

So I visit the doctor a couple times - does that make me qualified to judge his work?
I teach high school math and physics but I can't do a simple probability analysis. Should I be commenting on the LHC?

Watch it all or forward to Walter Wagner at about the 2:15 mark.

I used to run daily. Did that make me a physical therapist?
I eat food every day. Does that mean I know the nutritional value and positives / negatives of an Activia-fueled diet?
I go to the mall and I walk. Is iRenew a good product?

I went to school. Does that make me an education expert?

There is a huge difference between "I have experience with these" and "I have studied these in a scientific fashion." One is a guess. There other is not.

Dozens of TV shows and thousands of people believed that cheerleader who claimed the Flu shot made her walk backwards. Quantity is not a proof. Science is not a debate.

Another commenter:

So, where are the counter examples where scientists/experts got it wrong? This whole article is built on a fallacy--trust the experts. If it were to be the least bit helpful, it would have explained what we know, what we don't know and the strengths and weaknesses in our methods of knowing about the climate. But, of course, newspapers would rather make stupid arguments than educate the public so they can make better decisions.

Which I find somewhat amazing. Scientists get lots of things wrong. Then they fix the model and try again. Just because someone was wrong doesn't mean they can't fix it and get it right.

Rush Limbaugh is not a counter-argument.

And why the complete distrust of the "experts"? Do we refuse to drive a car because an expert mechanic worked on it? Does the expert computer technician bring us calm hope that our problem will be resolved or do we scream invectives and demand that the other politician really knows what's going on?

If you find that you can't trust those who spend their lives working on a problem in favor of someone with a monetary axe to grind, you'll simply wind up with "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette."

And there's that metric thing.

Other than in the picture ... Can you spot the error?

Event encourages interest in science
By Rachel Warren

Published: Sunday, March 28, 2010

About 125 people enjoyed an afternoon of kid-friendly activities Saturday at the Highland Road Park Observatory as part of NanoDays, a nationwide festival of educational programs.

The events are organized by participants in the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network and will take place in more than 200 museums, research centers and universities this year, according to the NanoDays Web site. The event in Baton Rouge was hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy and the Center for Computation and Technology.

Juana Moreno, physics assistant professor, said the event was organized to inform the general public, not just children, about nanotechnology — the science of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale.

She said she organized the event at the University of North Dakota when she taught there, and this is the first time she has put the event together at LSU.

The event hosted two speakers, Jayne Garno — a University chemistry assistant professor — and Kristen Buchanan from Colorado State University. Garno showed the audience images of nano-objects captured in her lab, and Buchanan discussed “nanomagnetism” and its application to hard drives.

University students also volunteered in demonstrations of nanoscience at tables set up throughout the observatory.

The interactive displays allowed children to play with liquid crystals, dissolve effervescent tablets to learn about surface area and pour liquid onto fabric to show how nanotechnology can be used to protect clothes from stains.

Rebecca Ringuette, physics graduate student, said she and the other students volunteered for the Society of Physics Students. She said the group is dedicated to public outreach and getting people excited about science, and it puts on as many events like NanoDays as it can.

“The next generation of scientists will not be there if we don’t get them interested in science,” she said.

A child’s interest in science is strongly influenced by the enthusiasm of the teacher, Ringuette said.

Will Heitman, a 9-year-old student at Bernard Terrace Elementary, discovered at the event he was 490 billion nanometers tall. His favorite demonstration was of the liquid crystals, which respond to temperature change by changing color.

Heitman said he attended the event because he loves science. He is especially interested in robotics and wants to be a roboticist when he is older.

Christopher Kersey, manager of the observatory, said it’s important children be introduced to physical science as soon as possible. He said the events of the day were geared toward children, but adults learned as well.

“Adults are interested because these kinds of things weren’t around when they were in school,” he said.

original here.

Table, tablecloth and dinner service minus tablecloth

Plus a little horsepower.

Dolphin Hunting techniques have evolved

I am fascinated by these dolphins. If this isn't "tool use", then it is at least a sign of awareness and intelligence.

Manufacturing a Soccer Ball

So this used to be a truncated icosahedron. You could make one from scratch pretty easily, cut it out and Viola!, you had a ball.

Oh, how times have changed ...

Sciene Tricks for Parties

Vaccines do not cause autism.

I'm not a fan of those such as Jenny McCarthy who run around trying to scare people into forsaking vaccines and known cures in favor of holistic medicine and other proven-to-be-pointless non-working treatments. The polio vaccine has saved countless children but Jenny is certain that it caused autism in her child so she campaigns against it. Not that she has any scientific evidence for that, of course. Not that she doesn't constantly rail against "scientific evidence" as if repeating the words will somehow turn them into blasphemy.

“I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their fucking fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's shit. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.”
Jenny McCarthy in Time Magazine, April 2009

Learn science, people. Do proper research. Trust logic.

I have had students tell me that the government is just trying to make money off the swine flu vaccine, that it'll just make you sick, that it'll cause all kinds of things. Then, of course, they get in a car and drive like idiots so I'm not terribly surprised that they can't take this seriously. At least the vast majority of the students in our school have gotten the shot a couple weeks ago.

Preventable Illnesses	Preventable Deaths

You can keep up to date with the Jenny McCarthy Body Count.

You can check this data at the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Reports, if you trust those **scientists**

Trivia for Wednesday the 29th

The name for this animal comes from the Afrikaans words meaning "Earth Pig". Nearly six feet long and the size of a wild pig, this creature has little hair and a long rat-like tail.

Trivia for Monday the 20th

Military Science
This plane holds several records, including New York to London in 1 hour 54 minutes and Los Angeles to Dulles International Airport, outside Washington, D.C., in 1 hour 4 minutes 20 seconds. Built for reconnaissance, it relied on speed instead of weapons for safety. Operational from 1964 to 1990, this spy plane could fly three times the speed of sound. Name the plane.

BONUS: If the distance is roughly 2600 miles, what was the average speed from LA to Dulles?

DOUBLE BONUS: If the speed of sound is 770 mph, what Mach Number did the plane average?

Tuesday Trivia

Chemistry

Name a common dilute acid used in the home as a cleanser and in salad dressings.
BONUS: What type of acid is this?
DOUBLE BONUS: give the chemical formula for this acid.

Answer from Monday:
Hans Christian Andersen, no less.

Saturday Trivia - July 11

Trivia Question:
What is the modern name for the practice suggested in this passage from the first century A.D.? "The earth neither grows old nor wears out if it be dunged."

BONUS: What are the three primary elements in this product?

DOUBLE BONUS: What are the chemical symbols of these elements?



Answers from Friday 10th:
Silmarillion : JRR TOLKIEN
Stranger in a Strange Land : ROBERT HEINLEIN
Dune : FRANK HERBERT
Narnia Chronicles : C.S. LEWIS
Jurassic Park : MICHEAL CRICHTON
A Spell for Chameleon : PIERS ANTHONY
Foundation Trilogy : ISAAC ASIMOV
Ender’s War : ORSON SCOTT CARD
2001: Space Odyssey : ARTHUR C. CLARKE
Midnight at the Well of Souls : JACK CHALKER

It's more than 50% likely that this guys a fool.

Via The Bad Astronomer and Mark C. Chu-Carroll comes what is probably the most probability-challenged statement of the year.

If it could happen or not happen, then the odds must be 50-50.

WOW.

Watch it all or forward to Walter Wagner at about the 2:15 mark.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Large Hadron Collider
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

This is from the Daily Show and is pretty interesting until Wagner makes his mind-blowingly stupid remark.

But then, the guy sued in a Honolulu court to stop the collider, which isn't even in this country, so his lawsuit has a 50-50 change of going his way -- either he'll win or he won't, right?

Science Fair

I get to judge science fair because I'm a sucker that way. It's interesting but occasionally very unpretty. Some conclusions are astounding.

Did you know that running up stairs makes your heart beat faster? No, really, it does. This graph shows it. (Insert Pareto sorted graph -- names vs. single recorded time -- here) Realize, my readers, that the data didn't compare relaxed heart rate to running heart rate vs BMI or something scientific. It was just name and number, thrown together that morning.

Compare that to an exploration of the burn temperature of flour-sugar mixtures. She didn't quite realize the shape of her graph. She figured on the exponential part but not that it would naturally have a decreasing growth rate as the mixtures approached 100% sugar. She tried to explain her extrapolation of her figures but knew it wasn't fitting the data right. I pointed out the 100% cap on the mixture and how that would limit the temperature to that of the pure mixture and her eyes lit up as she realized what the actual situation was. I felt a little bad when she said "it was so obvious now." Well, not really.

Some of the graphs make me shudder. One in particular had a horizontal axis evenly marked off, but labeled "0.1, 0.1, 1, 0.5, 2, 1, 0.5, 2, 3" The graph had an upward trend and so did the results. I am looking for the spot on the scoring rubric that said "Totally screwed up the graph and all conclusions made from it were garbage" but I couldn't find that entry.

Others had a couple observations and no real data to graph but they made graphs anyway. "I measured the time it took to climb three sets of stairs and graphed the numbers. I spent a lot of time painting the cardboard display." "So? What conclusion did you reach?"

Distraction vs style of music - I liked that one. I hope she quantifies the distraction of the music somehow, but it had definite promise.

Size of wound v time of bleed-out - give me a break.

Still others had had a "bit of help" from their parents. I asked one "I see this number in the table and I see it here on the graph, but where are these numbers? (indicating some others in the table)" Couldn't answer. Father answered for her. Father was wrong. I tried again. "How did you measure the heartbeat?" "I held the mouse and divided by 15." I think she meant that she counted for 15 seconds and multiplied by 4, but what I had seen already was pretty impressive for her regardless, so I didn't press further, just told her it was a good job and scored it so.

One kid was all proud of herself because she had been able to teach many other students about the use of Excel so that was a good spot of light on the evening.

Will you grade mine?" was the constant refrain. I really wish I could move around, look at them all and not have to score them, just offer a comment or suggestion or a "cool" without needing to spend too much time at each one. As it is, I always seem to miss so many of my students because it's just too much. After two hours, I have to get out.

And I hate the rubric.

Performance based on this?

I'm watching an English class give presentations based on their reading of some "To Build a Fire" type story - not the London tale but similar. This particular group is ninth graders, very remedial reading. These are not strong students but most gave a good attempt at a presentation. There was one, however, whose entire presentation on wilderness survival consisted of holding an aluminum energy-drink can and saying

"To start a fire, take a piece of chocolate and rub the bottom of the can to make it shiny and then shine it on the tinder and um, yeah."

That's it. That was the whole thing. Right out of SurvivorMan and not even that good.

So I'm thinking ... These are the kids whose math and English scores are going to be used tojudge us all and our effectiveness as teachers? How well I teach seems such a small part of the overall performance of our students. Their mood, the time of year, the help they get from parents or not, their attitude.

If I were grading this and gave the kid the grade it deserved, am I being too mean? Will the kid learn more from seeing the true worth of his work or should I pat him on the back and praise away my standards? At what point does the "Gotta make them learn" run up against the need for students to do their part and accept some responsibility for their laziness or screw-ups?

Am I at fault for the lazy student?

What is the goal here? Good performance on the NCLB test? Or preparation for the Real-World (tm) of bosses who are not happy with a 32-word presentation? Or some other vague notion of teaching to the best of your ability?

Is it any wonder I'm not in favor of performance bonuses for teachers?

I think I've used this excuse before.

"No, really, Officer. I was doing research in the lab with my assistant. We were making diamonds with tequila. Hic." "Tell it to the Judge, Sir."

From SlashDot:
Researchers, oddly enough from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, have found a way to make diamond films using tequila. They were originally testing methods of creating the films with organic solutions like acetone when it was noticed the ideal ratios of water and ethanol turned out to be about 80 proof, or 40% alcohol. "To dissipate any doubts, one morning on the way to the lab I bought a pocket-size bottle of cheap white tequila and we did some tests," Apátiga said. "We were in doubt over whether the great amount of chemicals present in tequila, other than water and ethanol, would contaminate or obstruct the process, it turned out to be not so. The results were amazing, same as with the ethanol and water compound, we obtained almost spherical shaped diamonds of nanometric size. There is no doubt; tequila has the exact proportion of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms necessary to form diamonds."

I love science. I just need to figure out how to tell my principal that this is a great example of critical thinking and that we should replicate the experiment. You know, peer review ...