I was at the Baltimore aquarium with my wife and kids a few weeks ago when Robert Kennedy Jr. called me on my cell phone to vent about the media’s deep reluctance to take his newly published book seriously. At the time, even the Huffington Post was giving him the back of the hand. This was a familiar story, one I had recently chronicled. But what struck me about Kennedy’s call was the timing: He was getting married the next day to Cheryl Hines. I told him to forget about Thimerosal for a day and focus on his wedding.
I mention this anecdote to illustrate Kennedy’s persistence. Call him a zealot, call him anti-science, call him what you will, but he is pressing on with his lonely campaign to rid all vaccines of Thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative long discontinued in U.S. pediatric vaccines but still used in a few flu vaccines. He has many friends in politics and media, but as I noted in my Washington Post magazine piece, he’s been repeatedly spurned on the thimerosal issue. He did recently get some airtime at CNN and today, he is taping a segment on the Dr. Oz show.
Joining Kennedy on the show will be Mark Hyman, a medical doctor (he operates The UltraWellness center) and best-selling author who has embraced the thimerosal issue with nearly as much gusto as Kennedy. Earlier in the year, Hyman’s health advisory role with the Clintons’s was written about in the New York Times. Hyman collaborated closely with Kennedy on his just-published Thimerosal book.
I’ll be curious to hear Dr. Oz’s interview with Kennedy and Hyman. Meanwhile, if you’d like to learn what Hyman thinks about Kennedy’s critics and the science and health authorities that have pronounced Thimerosal to be a safe vaccine ingredient, below is the recent email exchange between us. Read More
It’s not easy writing about Vandana Shiva. The Indian environmentalist is adored in green and progressive circles. Her exalted status has apparently disinclined many of my colleagues in the media from taking a closer look at what she stands for and what she often says on the global lecture circuit and to admiring journalists.
In 2012, science writer John Horgan published a book called The End of War. Its premise is that we have it in ourselves to tame our violent impulses, at least enough to stop waging large-scale, collective war. At first blush, this notion seems as quixotic and naive as a famous John Lennon and Yoko Ono song.
But Horgan wants us to seriously give peace a chance. From the book’s preview:
War is not preordained, and furthermore, it should be thought of as a solvable, scientific problem—like curing cancer. But war and cancer differ in at least one crucial way: whereas cancer is a stubborn aspect of nature, war is our creation. It’s our choice whether to unmake it or not.
Before going any further, I should acknowledge that I have not yet read Horgan’s book, which has just been reissued in paperback. At his Scientific American blog, Horgan discusses the new edition and assures us that he understands the gargantuan leap he thinks humankind is capable of making:
Our biggest challenge is making the transition from our world, which is still armed and dangerous, to a world in which war and even the threat of war have vanished. I am not an absolute pacifist. If someone attacks me or a loved one—or even a stranger–I would do my best to stop him. Sometimes violence is morally justified, even necessary, to thwart greater violence.
So the question is, how should we react to lethal group violence when it erupts in the world today?
But is that the right question? I would think that the greater challenge is eliminating the main reasons why one group of people sets out to kill another group. All through history wars have been fought over land, religion, flag, and ethnicity, to cite just a few of the major triggers. A commenter on a related post of Horgan’s expressed this another way:
I think war arises when we want something that others have and we believe we are entitled to have it.
I also think war arises when we believe so strongly about something that we cannot tolerate the existence and thriving of others who don’t agree with us. Our ideas of God have a lot to do with war when we feel threatened by the existence of others with different ideas.
Indeed, let’s look at the seemingly intractable Israeli/Palestinian issue, a conflict between two peoples that once again has erupted in carnage and tragedy. Rather than delve into the origins of this conflict and the complex forces that have locked Israelis and Palestinians into a vicious cycle of violence, I suggest you read the recent long exchange between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris. They engage in a spirited but civil and edifying debate on the latest outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza strip. Their discussion is wide-ranging, from the toxic nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the meaning of genocide. I will admit that throughout their conversation I found myself nodding along in agreement to much of what Harris was saying.
He makes one point at the outset that I found particularly striking: Read More
When evolutionary biologist and atheist superstar Richard Dawkins recently stepped into (yet another) sinkhole of his own making, fellow evolutionary biologist and all-star atheist PZ Myers shook his head sadly. (It was not the first time that Myers had chided Dawkins for “callous indifference.”) Dawkins, true to form, could not recognize the sinkhole he created. That led Myers to shake his head again, sadly.
As Myers wrote about the latest Dawkins sinkhole, “it hurts to see him say obnoxious things on Twitter, like rating different kinds of rape and pedophilia.” Even worse, Dawkins didn’t understand “why that’s objectionable,” Myers noted.
If I was 20 years younger and participated in a certain body art trend, I might have a tattoo inscribed on my forearm that said something like this:
— Josh Meier (@moshjeier) August 12, 2014
As the Skeptics Dictionary notes:
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs.
This is a very human tendency. Public debates on contentious topics, such as GMOs and climate change, are rife with confirmation bias. I know that everything I write on such topics is viewed by most readers with preconceptions, which include strong opinions already held about the topic itself, or even about me. I’m not really bothered by this, because I don’t see myself as a persuader. I’m not looking to change minds or win you over to any one side of an argument (even when I aim to debunk myths and misinformation). I’m much more interested in chronicling and exploring the contours of a particular scientific dialogue or narrative–how it formed, how it’s maintained, who is shaping it.
If, as a result of this, you come to reexamine some of your own assumptions, well, that’s an added bonus.
So one of the things that’s fascinating to me about confirmation bias is how it manifests itself in media and in those who probably think they are not infected by it.
Climate concerned advocates received some welcome news yesterday:
A new study finds that when they understand climate basics, some conservatives are more likely to accept that climate change is happening
I continue to be amazed at how much time and resources are spent justifying attempts to win over the most ideologically entrenched demographic in the climate debate. I’m also amazed that some climate advocates still cling to the notion that inaction on climate change persists because not enough Americans believe global warming is happening.
According to a 2013 Pew survey,
Two-thirds of Americans (67%) say there is solid evidence that the earth has been getting warmer over the last few decades, a figure that has changed little in the past few years.
True, of this percentage, only 39% can be classified as “concerned believers.” Overall, 36% percent of Americans are squishy fence straddlers, while 25% are identified as the “cool skeptics” unconcerned about global warming.
Is the goal of climate activists to convince more people that climate change is happening or to persuade more people that it is a major concern? It seems that those two aims often get conflated. But it is an important distinction, since as a 2014 report from the Yale Project on Climate Communication reiterated: Read More
Earlier this year, two writers at Mother Jones noted:
It’s easy to find bad information about the safety of vaccines on the internet.
True, that. It’s also easy to find bad information about the safety of GMOs on the internet.
What puzzles me is why liberal outlets recognize “bad information” about vaccines but not GMOs. (Grist is now a notable exception, after publishing skewed information on GMOs for years.) For let’s be clear: the science on GMOs is as solid and authoritative as it is on vaccines. So why are liberal outlets like the Huffington Post accepting of the scientific consensus on vaccines, but not GMOs?
I’m going to lay out an illustrative example of this contradiction in a minute. It has to do with an article on vaccines the Huffington Post rejected several weeks ago and one on GMOs that was recently published. But first, as a refresher, let’s review what prominent scientific bodies and institutions have concluded about the safety of GMOs. Here’s a handy overview from the Pacific Standard: Read More
A liberal publication (which I like and read) has a message for vaccine-hesitant parents.
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) August 6, 2014
Alas, this is an incredibly ignorant and counterproductive thing to say. Whoever is running MoJo’s social media operation needs to get familiar with the latest science communication research on vaccine messaging. A good place to start is this nice overview at DoubleXScience. Here’s an excerpt: Read More
When Neil deGrasse Tyson speaks, people listen. I was on vacation when America’s most prominent scientist made news for railing against GMO fearmongers. “Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food,” he told a French interviewer. It was an impromptu, oversimplified response on a complex, hot-button subject, but Tyson’s stance was clear to all: GMOs are nothing to be afraid of.
He has since expanded on his views in a Facebook post that is well worth reading. (More on this in a minute.) Tyson did not intentionally thrust himself into the GMO debate. Nonetheless, what he said carries tremendous weight. What’s interesting is how some are interpreting this importance.
At Vox, Ezra Klein seizes on Tyson’s statements as further proof of a key difference between agenda-setting liberals and conservatives on science. Sure, the liberal base of the Democratic party is anti-GMO, Klein acknowledges. But this hasn’t mutated into the liberal equivalent of conservative climate denial, because the Democratic establishment–particularly its powerbrokers—-haven’t embraced the anti-GMO views of its base, he argues.
This is true. In the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama paid lip service to the nascent GMO labeling campaign, but has since steered clear of the battle. (And it is heating up.) The State Department during Obama’s tenure has challenged international trade barriers that restrict products containing GMO ingredients. Last year, Obama infuriated the anti-GMO wing of his base when he signed the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” (a much misunderstood bill). Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Democratic standard-bearer, has come out strongly in favor of crop biotechnology. As Klein correctly notes, “You don’t see President Obama or Democratic congressional leaders pushing anti-GMO legislation.”
But this is a narrow lens to view GMO politics and policy. Consider the case of AquaBounty Technologies, the company that develops a genetically modified salmon. The transgenic fish has been stuck in a regulatory black hole for nearly two decades. A final decision by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), was set to be released in 2012, but opposition from environmental and consumer groups apparently nixed that.
NGO’s self-identifying as public interest groups are typically aligned with liberal causes. Many people, especially those who consider themselves progressive Democrats, presume these groups to be a force for good, motivated by truth and science. But as journalist Marc Gunther details in a recent Guardian piece, these groups don’t deserve such trust on GMO issues. He specifically cites the AquaBounty case: Read More
Nearly a decade ago, I wrote a profile of Richard Cizik for Audubon magazine. He was, at the time, a prominent lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals and a member of good standing among social and political conservatives. But Cizik’s views on a number of hot-button issues were evolving. In 2008 he was forced to resign, or as he later put it, fired for remarks he made on NPR:
In a broad-ranging conversation about my work to educate my fellow evangelicals about the impacts of climate change, I told Terry Gross, the host of NPR’s “Fresh Air,” that I could support “civil unions” for gays and lesbians and that government funding of contraception was morally acceptable as a way to avoid abortion.
As I wrote in my Audubon piece, Cizik had come to view global warming as an urgent, moral issue. History would judge the evangelical community, he believed, just as it had on another defining issue: Read More