Category: Science

In Science #AllTrials are Important

In Science #AllTrials are Important

Stat reports that the government will get serious about wanting so see the study results of clinical trials it is funding:

At a national cancer summit Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden threatened to cut funds to medical research institutions that don’t report their clinical trial results in a timely manner.

“Under the law, it says you must report. If you don’t report, the law says you shouldn’t get funding,” Biden said, citing a STAT investigation that found widespread reporting lapses.

“I’m going to find out if it’s true” that the research centers aren’t reporting the results, Biden said — “and if it’s true, I’m going to cut funding. That’s a promise.”

I really support this move. In fact, I support campaigns to ensure that all trials and studies are published. This is because we cannot make informed decisions without all the information. Especially when talking about health.

Curiously, long time skeptic Brian Dunning seemed to be baffled by this question, and asked if all trials was going to far:

Brian is trying to be reasonable, save money and probably put it to better use. But what he is talking about is the problem. If one or two poorly designed studies find that a new drug does something good they get published as preliminary results. If people do follow up studies that find the drugs don’t work they often time cannot get published, or the authors choose not to publish them. This means that the results are biased toward proving any medication works, not the truth.

If we only see a biased selection of the evidence we can conclude something that is wrong when trying to be reasonable and looking at the evidence. Fellow Canadian Humanist Ian Bushfield pointed this out:

Over the last year Ian has pushed Sense About Science and All Trials. Both seem to be doing good work with respect to science.

This was originally posted as a shareable Facebook note.

Naturalism is Enough

On the Infidel Guy earlier this year was someone who said that his slogan is that “Naturalism is Enough”.  Some people seem to think that if you loose the supernatural that the world become dreary.  Well, the world is the world with or without the supernatural.  A sunset, a friendship, a flower, a bee, all these things are the same with or without devine being.

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
–Douglas Adams

While watching the extended interview on “The God who Wasn’t There” I heard Robert M. Price say that symbolism shouldn’t be looked down on.  It’s not just symbolism, it’s “no less than symbolism.”  With that in mind…

It’s not just naturalism.  It is no less than naturalism.

The March of Science Education

Science education in North America, especially the United States, is a very interesting battleground.  Over the past hundred or so years there has been a resurgance of peole who interpret the Bible as conflicting with reality.  Despite the fact that most educated religous leaders like the last Pope accept evolution, there is a body of people who reject modern biology.  Though they have fought long and hard it seems like they may have been set back enough that future growth is near impossible.  Although I hope this will lead to a decline, this remains at this moment only a hope.  It’s interesting to note that most people in Europe ignore evolution while in the United States it’s a ralleying cry for a large group of believers.

A brief history of creationsim

Creationism: Originally people tries to teach creationsim–that is, God creating the world in 6 days–in science.  This didn’t catch as there is no science involved in it.

Creationism Science: So then they called it creationsim science.  Sounds good doesn’t it?  Sadly, there was no science to be found.  Merely claims of why evolution wasn’t science.  I can’t stress this enough.  Creationism Science is not findings supporting creationsim, but a collection of arguements against evolution. They offer nothing new to the table.  It’s also impotant to note that also the bite sized critics of evolution sound good to the untrained, they are actually invalid either because they misunderstand the scientific principles that they use, or new evidence has come to light in the last 150 years to discredit the idea.

Edwards v. Aguillard was a trial that concluded that teaching creationsim science was really simply teaching creationism (that is, a religoius viewpoint) and that the government should not have anything to do with this.  So people dropped this name.

CDesign Proponentsists: So then they called it CDesign.  Sadly, there still was no science to be found.  Merely claims of why evolution wasn’t science.  I can’t stress this enough.  CDesign is not findings supporting creationsim, but a collection of arguements against evolution. They offer nothing new to the table.  It’s also impotant to note that also the bite sized critics of evolution sound good to the untrained, they are actually invalid either because they misunderstand the scientific principles that they use, or new evidence has come to light in the last 150 years to discredit the idea (see “missing link”).  It failed to catch in acheiving any goals, but did manage to bring in people who were more moderate on to their side.

Intelligent Design: So then they called it Intelligent Design (droping the C for creationism).  Sadly, there still was no science to be found.  Merely claims of why evolution wasn’t science.  I can’t stress this enough.  Intelligent Design is not findings supporting creationsim, but a collection of arguements against evolution. They offer nothing new to the table.  It’s also impotant to note that also the bite sized critics of evolution sound good to the untrained, they are actually invalid either because they misunderstand the scientific principles that they use, or new evidence has come to light in the last 150 years to discredit the idea (too complex to have evolved).  It failed in acheiving any goals, but did manage to bring in people who were more moderate on to their side.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District the Judge ruled that ID is really just creationism relabled.

Teach the Controversy: So now they’ve backed off to the idea of teaching the controversy.  They are leaving the realm of trying to critic evolution directly since they lose in any professional body.  All that’s left is to to say “look, some people belief differently.”  There are a few reasons why it’s silly to teach the controversy.

  1. There is no real controversy.  Biology class should teach what biologists do.  Virtually all biologists support evolution.  It’s people without a strong biological background that tend to reject it.
  2. There is some controversy about lots of things.  Some people don’t think Hitler is a bad guy, and that the Nazis didn’t kill 6 million Jews and 6 million other civilians.  Just because people don’t accept something doesn’t mean we should waste school time talking about it.

They have continued to fall back, and with any luck they will stay back there.

Balance in Nature

Last night my co-workers and I were talking about humans, nature, and our “place” in nature. One concept that came up was the often repeated “balance” in nature. After break I returned to work and thought this over in my head. It occurred to me that there isn’t really any balance in nature.

There have been 7 mass extinction events where large groups of animals have all died out. In fact, it turns out that over 90% of all species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct.

It seems unbalanced to me. Now, I’d like to point out that extinction, even mass extinction like the Dinosaurs, doesn’t mean wanton destruction, and violence. This can all happen without any more chaos and killing than happens at any other time.

One example of balance that was brought up was the idea of the recent human population boom and the increase in the number of human diseases. This isn’t balance, it’s cause and effect. Viruses and cancers and the like aren’t increasing to subdue us Humans, but rather they are increasing because the number of viable hosts (us) are increasing. See, ever since we invented the idea of farming, we have started to live really, really close to each other. We now have more people living in less area then ever before in recorded history. Because of this, every new virus that evolves can easily spread because we all live closely together. Viruses aren’t balancing the fast growth of the human population, they are simply doing what all organisms do (reproduce). The fact is we have just accidentally provided them with fertile ground (more of our bodies) for them to grow in. It’s really that simple, though some people like to make up deeper layers of meaning.

Interestingly, the conversation started with weather or not we should try to cure cancer and viruses or if that is messing with nature. Given the above, I think that not trying stem them is unbalancing nature.

Ancestor’s Tale

Recently I read Richard Dawkin’s the Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. It’s a biology book (currently on sale at Chapter for $10 CAD) which starts with modern humans, and goes back through the ages describing what our common ancestor with other animals would have looked like. One of our first stops is the common ancestor we have with other modern apes. From their, we visit the common ancestor of us and monkey, all the way back to fungi and single celled organisms.

For every common ancestor we meet, they have a tale to tell us. Each of these tales explains something about biology. This book goes through many biological topics and explains all about evolution, genetics, and at some times even how we get evidence to back up what we understand about these processes.

Much of the book was fairly easy to read. If one does not have an amateur’s background in biology, some of these sections would be hard to get through. But they are few. Many of the chapters are well explained and accessible for most people. Tough concepts are explained and summarized. With a bit of courage and dedication I think anyone could read through this book and get something from it.

It’s a descent, almost practical introduction to common descent and to get a solid understanding of evolution. And it’s rich in information for those with an amateur’s level of knowledge with evolution. But I suspect that biology graduates themselves would get something out of this book.

Creationism in schools

The Episcopal Diocese of Missouri (they are part of the Anglican Communion) has said that Creationism/Intelligent Design does not belong in the science class room. I can strongly agree with this statement they have agreed on:

[We strongly recommend] that if ‘intelligent design’ is taught in Missouri, it should be taught in a religious context and in a religious setting, and it should not be mandated as an official part of the public school science curriculum in the state of Missouri.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science. What is science? What scientists do, and scientists don’t do Creationism. I applaud the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri for recognizing this. I would also point out that they have no problem with Creationism being taught in school, and neither do I. I just think we should do it honestly, in a “religious context”.

Source:

The Cosmological Anthropic Principle

I recently got in an online debate about wether or not our universe is fine tuned for life to evolve. This is usually called the Anthropic Principle, which means that the universe was made for life (or specifically for human life). This argument can be used both for people who think that a deity made the universe as we know see it for human life, or that a deity fine tuned the initial parameters of our universe so that life could evolve within the universe. In general, when the argument is used in a debate, it is said quite simply:

I believe, as do many people, that the physical parameters of our universe SEEM to be very finely tuned to allow the existence of a long-term universe, stable stars, and complex chemistry, all of which were necessary for life to arise; if the parameters were even just a little bit different, we’d have none of those things.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/robertjsawyer/message/22912

In the post, the author gave 2 sources to read on the subject, which I hope to do. In my reply, however, I rebutted the point very simply. First, I said the term “just a little bit different” is open to wide interpretation. Another way of saying that is if they were “slightly different” which someone else said in the thread. My question was, how much is just a little bit? Using what metric? Are you using absolute numbers, or a percentage?

Then came the real crux of the matter. The idea of the Anthropic Principle is that if the strength of gravity, magnetism, or the strong or weak nuclear forces had been just a little bit different, we could not be here:

If the physical constants of this universe had been only slightly different we’d not have any second generation stars — meaning no elements except hydrogen and helium. We’d not have a universe that lasted more than a few *years* (or even seconds) — meaning no time for evolution. Oh, and there would be no molecules either, and possibly no atoms — just subatomic particles (try to get protons to pack together if the strong nuclear force is only a bit weaker than it actually is). Rather than read Douglas Adams on this, I’d suggest a few scientists. Look at Martin Rees and Lee Smolin, for instance.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/robertjsawyer/message/22927

One such example is gravity:

Although I think it might be able to make some reasonable assumptions for conditions which life (of any sort) requires to form:

-a universe that, after the big bang, didn’t very quickly collapse back in on itself

-a universe in which, after the big bang, matter is actually drawn together in sufficient quantity to form stars. Because without stars, it’s just H and He out there.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/robertjsawyer/message/22925

My reply was that gravity does have some wiggle room. By now, everyone is familiar with the “Big Bang“. The idea is that about 13.8 billion years ago the universe started to expand. If gravity had been too strong, the universe would have collapsed in on itself before life began. If gravity had been to weak, stars and planets could not have formed. But the way that’s worded gives you a false impression that there are only three states that gravity can be in: too strong, too weak, and just right. But, in fact, there are many states. It’s not three separate points that gravity can be set at, but it’s a large range of points.

Scientists are not sure how our universe is going to end. They currently predict one of three things is going to happen. One theory is that universe may expand for ever, and everything will get so far apart that stars won’t have planets, planets won’t have moons, and everything will generally decay. Another is that there is enough gravity to slow down the expansion, and the universe will start to contract, and will eventually collapse in on itself in the “Big Crunch“. And there is a third possibility: that there is just enough gravity that the universe will reach one specific size and just stay there forever. The probably of that happening by chance is very, very small. Something like this is called a cusp.

But the thing is, we have this theory of the universe, and we have measurements of gravity. The last I heard was that scientists can’t decide which side of the cusp we are on, but they know we are very, very near the cusp. This means that if you have just a little too much the universe would keep expanding, or if you had just a little less the universe would contract, and if you had a number between the two of them, you would hit some sort of equilibrium.

This adds more categories to the idea that if you had a little too much the universe would have collapsed long ago. The fact that scientists don’t know which it is, means that the difference between “a little more” and “a little less” has no effect on if planets would form or not. So, there is wiggle room for these numbers.

In reality, the continuum of what the universe would be like if gravity was different is as follows:

  1. Far Too Much Gravity: the universe collapses in on itself within a few billion years of expanding. (Before stars, planets, and life can get underway.)
  2. Too Much Gravity: the universe will eventually start to contract and collapse in on itself. (But the universe hangs around for more than 10 billions years, allowsing for life to form.)
  3. Just Enough Gravity: the universe will reach equilibrium and stay one size. (Cusp.)
  4. Too Little Gravity: the universe will eventually get so spread out that there won’t be a star in the night sky, and solar system will stop forming. (But it will takes tens or even hundreds of billions of years to get to that point.)
  5. Far Too Little Gravity: stars and planets could not form. (Life cannot evolve.)

Each of these, except for the cusp, are ranges of numbers. You can wiggle a bit and still be in any of them, except the cusp. But, according to the current understanding of the universe, any of the three centre ones (TMG, JEG, and TLG) allows the earth to form. Thus, if there is wiggle room, the argument that “if it was a little different” would need to be quantified. As it stands, that statement is misleading.

One final note. According to the above link about the Anthropic Principle, Stephen Hawking claims that if there was a Big Bang, there is a 98% chance that a universe like ours would occur. So, it seems that this “fine tuning” can happen by chance, and in fact, is very likely to happen by chance. (But scientists are still discussing that conclusion.)

Space Spin-off

Nope, I’m not telling you about yet another Science Fiction TV show/movie that is having another spin-off. Instead, I simply have a list of technology and products that are spin offs of the space programs:

From NASA’s Office of Space Operations:

  • Computer-assisted tomography
  • Eximer laser angioplasty
  • Breast biopsy system
  • Blood seperation storage
  • Infrared thermometry
  • Ultraviolet protection suits
  • Molding
  • Engine and combustion technologies
  • Automobile construction
  • Airline safety
  • New structures and alloys
  • Fasteners
  • Spacesuit fabric use as ideal roofing material
  • Microchips, microcircuit boards
  • Planning and scheduling software
  • Firefighting equipment
  • Food preparation and packaging

Singapore Science Centre

  • Dental braces
  • Rechargeable batteries
  • The cordless drill
  • Reverse cycle air-conditioning
  • Cardiac monitoring equipment
  • Systems to guide car drivers to vacant parking spaces
  • Pacemakers
  • Cardiac monitors
  • Tele medicine
  • Artificial hearts
  • Diagnostic instruments
  • Robotic and remote surgery
  • Infra-red thermometers
  • Materials used to make lifelike artificial limbs
  • Osteoporosis scanning and bone research instruments

From Robert J. Sawyer’s keynote address “The Social Value of Space Science ,” presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Physical Sciences in Space, Sponsored by the Canadian Space Agency, Wednesday, May 26, 2004, in Toronto:

  • Rocket fuel that is used to launch shuttles can also help destroy land mines
  • Infrared, hand-held camera used to scan brush fires
  • Imaging-processing technology now used by police to analyze crime-scene videos
  • A new artificial heart on the market that uses technology from shuttle fuel pumps
  • Devices used measure astronauts’ equilibrium when they return to Earth are now being used by doctors to diagnose with chronic dizziness, head injuries, stroke, and central nervous system disorders
  • NASCAR racing cars are shielded from extreme engine heat by composites developed for the shuttle’s thermal protection system, and is used by jewelers as safer soldering bases.
  • And the shuttle’s foam insulation is used to make lighter-weight, extremely durable master molds for prosthetics.

From the same keynote address, things that people think are from the space program, but aren’t:

  • Tang was introduced in 1957, a year before NASA came into being.
  • Velcro and Teflon were developed for ground-based uses, and only later co-opted by the space program.