Well, the 2008 AAAS Annual Meeting here in Boston was fun! I didn't expect that. I'm not a huge fan of scientific conferences because I have an extremely short attention span. And I haven't been blogging a lot - I'd rather just enjoy the frenzy. I've been averaging 4.5 hours of sleep a night, to the dismay of my roomies! But Discover has been blogging regularly, as have some of the Sciblings.
Saturday's highlight should have been the appearance by representatives of the Obama and Clinton campaigns, who spoke on the candidates' scientific policy positions. Sheril already summarized (update: and critiqued ) this session, which got a lot of buzz and was better attended than many of the plenary speeches. But I wasn't impressed. The reps were predictably reluctant to endorse tangible positions on their candidates' behalf. For specifics, we were told to go read various speeches by the candidates; the audience began snickering the third or fourth time Obama's rep told us to visit BarackObama.com. Answering a question on GINA (the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) and genetic privacy, neither rep seemed to know anything about GINA - they referred only to the general concept of privacy concerns as might be covered in health legislation. Shouldn't they be familiar with legislation currently in play? In the Senate?
Of course one can't expect either candidate, or any one campaign rep, to be qualified to speak in depth to every scientific issue that informs policy. I thought the questions asked by the scientists in the audience reflected reasonable expectations on that score. And scientists do understand that any trend favoring a scientific foundation for policy decisions would be a victory. Hillary Clinton's representative, who performed much better than Obama's, characterized the current Administration's relationship with its science advisers as "the same relationship a drunk has to a lamp-post - for support, not illumination." But the whole session underscored the need to have the candidates themselves, not their proxies, answer these questions, as would hopefully happen in a "real" science debate.
My favorite event Sunday - indeed of the whole conference - was a symposium, "Communicating Science in a Religious America," organized by Scibling Matthew Nisbet at Framing Science. The entire 3-hour session was filled to capacity, with people peering in from the hall and sitting in the aisles. The quality of presentations was universally high - the focus here was on communication, and the presenters appear to know whereof they spoke, especially that humor helps the message go down.
And to end on an up note, my frustration that things don't really change for the better in policy circles - a feeling brought on by dozens of talks on sustainability, global health, and climate change - was mediated somewhat by an inspirational plenary speech Saturday evening, given by Nicholas Negroponte of One Laptop, One Child. It was wonderful to see such a simple application of technology making a real difference to children's lives NOW. I wish every child in America had a laptop. Maybe when that goal is met in countries like Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, we'll be shamed into making that happen.
- Log in to post comments
One problem I see with a "science" debate is unrealistic expectations. As the significant other of a scientist, and one who interacts frequently with her colleagues, I've come to the conclusion that most scientists are idiot savants. They know their field and know it well, but beyond that it's reading in the dark. Furthermore, if someone's opinion is contrary to their expectations, often they shut down. That is, the Kuhn effect comes into play as many scientists belie the "open mind" paradigm. (I know this first hand as her research contradicts the established paradigm regarding Hox-Pbx dependencies. Data be damned, their investment is more valuable.) So if a politician, who by nature attempts to appease and develop consensus, steps into the middle of a scientific debate, the only good that will come of it will be exposure of the issues. While this may seem to be a favorable event, the distortion and rhetoric may undo any good. Case in point, look at the controversy surrounding Nisbet's efforts.
As former computer/internet jockey, now art historian and geographer I have many doubts about the benefit of widespread computer distribution. It's a double edged sword that needs to be wielded with the utmost care. Too many students rely on google and wikipedia to spoon feed them information and lack the skills necessary to find such information themselves. Furthermore, critical thinking often takes a backseat in such interactions. The internet is replacing the paradigm of "it's in a book, it must be true" with "it's on a web page, it must be right." Then there's the e-waste problem. Although this program has my support because I believe the benefit can outweigh the detriment, it needs to be undertaken with more care than simply throwing laptops off the back of a truck like so many sacks of grain.
Moira Gunn had a great take on genetic privacy - how can we expect to keep it private if we constantly disperse it everywhere we go?
Onkel Bob, I'd respond in detail, but somehow I get the impression you've had your mind made up on these issues for some time. ;) As with the argument for Clinton vs. Obama, I respect people on both sides of the "Sciencedebate 2008 debate." Neither side being all wrong. And I met very few idiot savants this weekend at AAAS.
As for Negroponte's efforts, I'd happily spoon feed wikipedia to kids who don't even have current science textbooks. I used to be involved with collecting science textbooks/journals and mailing them to Africa - costly, horribly inefficient, and inevitably outdated. This is much better. And Negroponte described an additional benefit: at the pilot school, there was a 100% increase in enrollment the first year from kids within the village who just weren't attending before. They got interested. I'd rather they be interested in Wikipedia, MySpace, and Facebook than uninterested in getting an education. It's really that simple for me - I don't see a downside here.
Ummm, unlike many, my mind is still rather plastic. So the assumption that I have arrived at a concrete conclusion is incorrect. I simply believe more energy should be expended in getting education issues fleshed out - how are the candidates going to impress on the populace to recognize the current problems when few understand the question?
As for the idiot savant crack, the people that leave the lab, are not representative of the greater population. Spend the evening up on the farm here and you'll meet more people that can describe the krebs cycle in excruciating detail but not tell you who was the president during Watergate or why that event was so important.
As for the computer distribution, you are making some great leaps that are not based in reality. How much bandwidth is available between Port Au Prince and Miami? (Hint, it's less then the available b/w between two buildings on my campus!) Again, I like the idea and support it. However, for many places the underlying infrastructure is non-existent. The $100 Laptop relies on setting up a series ad hoc 802.11 networks to connect to an eventual POP of the internet. Therein lies the stumbling point: you will have clusters attached to other clusters that rely upon strings which are easily broken. Cellular phone penetration is making great headway in Africa for a reason - there is no copper infrastructure. Those telecoms are not going to piggyback your internet connection when they can make money off voice traffic. As a former engineer who was on the ground floor of the first networks crossing rural Turkey, the equipment necessary and expertise needed to maintain it is far, far, greater than I suspect you imagine. At least a book doesn't require a boot up, fail due to rain-solar-humidity fade, and is useful as a standalone device. While I have qualified support the laptop distribution, your description of it as a panacea is IMHO, dangerously naive. My job was to think of what could go wrong, what would be the effect, and how do we prepare for that inevitable situation. Too often, people wander in and with their best intentions and wreak havoc they never expected. I assume you have read Achebe.
Downside? How much lead is in each laptop? What is the expected life-cycle? How will spare parts be distributed? How will the product be repaired, maintained, and disposed of when the former are impossible? IBM didn't make money selling computers, that was a losing operation. They made their ROI through services and parts once the equipment was established. Pilot projects, by design, are intended to establish paths, determine failure points, and most importantly - succeed. However, one event that works doesn't establish precedent. When that inevitable failure occurs, what contingency plans are in place? What I fear is these well meaning people go in there passing these things out without asking any of these questions. I hope Dr Negroponte has thought long and hard about them, or at least has delegated that task to someone.
I didn't describe One Laptop, Per Child as a panacea, and I have absolutely no interest in arguing such an extreme position. I'm well aware of the challenges to equitable wireless access in Africa, issues with laying fiberoptic, etc. I agree it's a problem that requires some good minds and some significant investment. As for your questions about maintenance, etc., they're the same questions I had entering the talk. Negroponte addressed enough of them to convince me that even if they are not yet solved, his team has thought those issues through. If he hadn't convinced me of this, I would have panned the talk! As just one example, he specified the replacement method for the light in the display, the cost of the replacement unit, the number of laptops that broke in the pilot program, and the repair strategy (the older students do it locally - they're also the ones who build the antennae for the schools). OLPC has a wiki with many specs that you, as a tech person, will no doubt appreciate more than I do. Happy reading!
Anyway, implying that I don't understand scientific myopia is silly - I had to spend time in a lab to get that pesky PhD, after all - but my point is that many scientists, particularly those active in public policy issues, are not.
Also - when there is a winking smiley face in the comment, I'm teasing. Just FYI.
Hi Jessica, I'm glad to hear the report on the presidential candidate brush with science. Hope you got to enjoy the eclipse.
I did enjoy the eclipse - the skies cleared up just long enough to give a lovely view. I hadn't seen an eclipse in years, and it made me feel like a kid again. I walked home with my head tilted at a really bizarre angle and wondered why everyone else wasn't doing the same.