By Jon Winsor

Last week, we reported on Mitt Romney taking a “round-Earth position on climate change.” Not surprisingly, for certain people, Romney had done the unthinkable:

(Of course, Rush has opposed nominees who’ve won the nomination before–for instance, John McCain last year.)

Later, Romney’s questioner actually called in to Limbaugh’s show, and did an admirable job:

(more…)

By Jon Winsor

On the day after his announcement of his candidacy in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney made an encouraging statement on climate science:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.”It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

It’s a qualified statement (“may be significant contributors”?), but we’ll take it–while also noting that many of his statements hedge a good deal more, for instance, “there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now.” This is a statement of fact, but it’s a red herring.

But Romney’s affirming climate science, even to this extent, still endangers him as a candidate. As the National Journal writes: “Romney’s acknowledgment of man-made climate change is likely to stoke skepticism among conservatives who view him as too moderate. The view that humans are contributing to climate change is a highly controversial position within the GOP, with most conservatives fiercely disputing the notion that Earth is warming at all.” (more…)

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

I needn’t expound on the perfection of Sagan’s words as an accompaniment to the 2010 Hubble images.

Rather, I’ll leave it to you to enjoy this YouTube Doubler that I created.

You’ll need to press play for both videos in rapid succession. I recommend starting the Hubble video first.

While you watch, keep in mind that there is no one today who is as effective as he at communicating the conflict between science and religion. How many scientists did he create? How many atheists did he nurture? Who can do this with similar effect today? I say no one is, but many can, if they so choose.

Enjoy!

by Jon Winsor

Over at the US Intellectual History blog (a great blog, BTW), historian David Sehat reflects on Thomas Frank’s recent piece in Harper’s on the Tea Partiers’ claims to historical authority:

Frank spends a bit of space in the article showing the historical inaccuracy and general absurdity of the Tea Partiers’ quotations of the Founders. Many of the quotes are made up. A few could not have possibly been said by the Founders, because they contain vocabulary and concepts that were not yet in circulation during the Founders’ lifetimes. His article is, as these exercises usually are, pretty much shooting fish in a barrel, though still entertaining…

He’s entertained, but also exasperated:

I wonder, what is the best response from historians in the face of rampant historical inaccuracy that is often combined with fervent worship of a false past? Is our task to keep pointing out error, knowing that we will not be heeded? I’m afraid that it might be.

But I am still not ready to give up the effort.

His colleague Mike O’Connor responds in the comments:

It seems like the logical thrust of your argument leads not to historians endlessly noting factual misconceptions about the past, but to them endlessly pointing out that these beliefs are not fundamentally historical.

In a similar vein, the argument that creation science is wrong is not nearly as compelling as the argument that it is not really science. Engaging in the tit-for-tat cedes the most important issue: that the competing ideas are on some sort of level epistemological playing field. Once that has been (implicitly) established, in the battle between Frank’s member of the “populist right” and his “liberal college professor,” the liberal has already lost. (more…)

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., an HIV research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

Just a few months ago, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie proclaimed his doubt that climate change is occurring due to human activities.  At a town hall meeting held in Tom’s River, NJ, Christie made these comments:

“Mankind, is it responsible for global warming? Well I’ll tell you something. I have seen evidence on both sides of it. I’m skeptical — I’m skeptical. And you know, I think at the at the end of this, I think we’re going to need more science to prove something one way or the other.”

Yesterday, he announced that he has changed his position. I’m not sure what science has been done in the last 6 months to convince Governor Christie to make this change.  As far as I know, the science today is exactly the same as the science then.  Regardless, Christie recently met with two expert scientists, Ken Miller, a geologist with long experience documenting sea level changes, and atmospheric science Anthony Broccoli, both from Rutgers University.  I guess all politics (and now science) is local.  After holding these meetings, the Governor has apparently seen the light and has decided to defer to the experts on this controversial issue.

Here is a clip from the press conference at the NJ State House in which he explains  how he came to appreciate the role humans play in climate change:

Christie has been touted time and again for his leadership on conservative issues. So, the news of his conversion will surely send shock waves through the Republican Party, many of whom have been carrying the climate skeptics’ flag for some time now.

Is this a sign that the Republican Party may soon be “coming to Jesus” on the climate issue?  (more…)

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., an HIV research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

Tim Pawlenty made a third “announcement” of his candidacy for President, yesterday, in Iowa.  In doing so, he missed an opportunity to define himself as a 21st Century candidate.  He could have distinguished himself from all other Republican candidates by embracing science and technology as keys to America’s future.  He also could have attracted a second-look from independent voters who are seeking a modern thinker from the Republican party.  Instead, he comes off looking like a stale, old, status quo, 20th Century candidate.

Why do I say this?

In his speech to the citizens of Iowa, the former Republican Governor of Minnesota took what has been described as a “courageous” position on an issue that is critical to many Iowans.  He announced his intention to end federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol, if elected.  Many have proposed that he is simply distancing himself from the current top Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who has made no such proposal.  I believe he is making a narrow-minded play for the conservative wing of the Republican Party.  After all, Governor Pawlenty justifies his proposed cuts by framing the discussion in terms of fiscal responsibility *and gives no indication of what he plans to do with those federal dollars.*

“Given the financial crisis that we’re facing, we have to phase out not only those subsidies but subsidies across all industries,” he stated.

This is where I think he missed his chance to establish himself as a truly forward thinking Presidential candidate. *Update:  I totally support ending federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol.  However, we must re-appropriate those funds to develop alternative energy sources.*  Governor Pawlenty could have solidified support in Iowa by offering a new, cutting edge path toward prosperity for farmers who rely on the corn industry.  By making a pledge to apportion some of the *former* subsidies to do research on the development of cellulosic ethanol *or other alternative fuels*, Pawlenty’s message to Iowa and the rest of America could have signaled that he is aware of the energy problems we face and he is prepared to use modern science and technology to solve them.  He also could have offered a glimmer of hope for Iowa farmers looking to maintain their current standard of living.  The corn stalks and leaves left over after the corn grain has been been harvested for food might have been presented as another source of revenue as food stock for ethanol production.  Instead, he left farmers wondering how they are going to continue to support their employees and their families.  Some would say that’s a “job-killing” policy.  Does he not see the opportunity provided by scientific research in this area?  Or, is there another agenda at work here? (more…)

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., an HIV research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

Hi Intersection readers!  I’m happy to be back.  Because my day job as a research scientist is rather demanding, I am unable to be a full-time blogger, however Chris has invited me to contribute on occasion.  I am pleased to be able to continue to share my ideas with you and I truly appreciate your feedback.  This has been a wonderful learning experience.  As I said before, you have much more to teach me than I have to offer you.  That is an ideal arrangement for me.

Now, I’d like to discuss a topic that came up in the recent Point of Inquiry interview in which Chris took the interviewee seat to chat with Ron Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry.  Ron led a conversation about criticisms of Chris for his “accomodationism” and the effectiveness of the new Atheists communication methods for persuading the religious to reconsider their position on evolution.

At one point in the interview, Ron brought up the higher level of secularism among Europeans and proposed that critical analysis of religion should be the means to get people to understand science better and maybe accept evolution.  In other words, the way to get people to accept evolution is not to soft-peddle criticism of religion but rather to subject religion to rather harsh criticism.

Chris appropriately responded, “If you assume the harsh criticism is going to change their minds, which is something that I strongly reject.  I think it will backfire…”

So the question is how do we convince them to retire their religious beliefs?

Chris’ made this thoughtful recommendation:

“I would try to empower the messengers that they (religious folks) will listen to, people who are more like them, people who they trust.  That means people in their community, pastors, scientists who are religious, people who are closer to them and can speak a bit more of their language and may be able to move them.  It will still be very hard.  You will still trigger a lot of resistance, but I think there will be more openness than, kind of, the frontal assault from someone with whom you have very little or nothing in common: an atheist.”

I agree with Chris on this response.  Prior evidence suggests that opinions of others are more likely to be accepted when they derive from individuals who represent values similar to one’s own.  However, new research suggests that atheists and others who wish to improve science communication can increase their effectiveness by adopting new tactics not included in Chris’ comment.  And, Surprise!, the most effective tactics are not those used by Richard Dawkins and the “new Atheists.”

Researchers at the University of British Columbia and Union College have conducted a study that suggests that a more naturalist approach as used by the late Carl Sagan is more effective than that used by the new Atheists at persuading individuals to accept Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and reject the Intelligent Design Theory.  Lead author Jessica Tracy and co-authors Joshua Hart and Jason Martens identified “death anxiety” as one motivator for the acceptance of Intelligent Design Theory over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.  The authors explain that peoples’ thoughts about their own mortality “may be central factors underlying the success of the IDT movement and corresponding doubt about ET.”  Essentially, preference for IDT is part of a “terror management” strategy that offers more psychological security than acceptance of ET.  However, the language used to communicate ET can be crafted in such a way as used by Sagan that it becomes more appealing perhaps more comforting, even to those inclined to prefer IDT.

This article offers fertile territory for discussion on ways to improve communication strategies for those of us who wish to effectively reach those in the religious community.  Although there is room for criticism of this study, I believe there is now a growing accumulation of scientific evidence that supports the rejection of the tactics used by Dawkins and other new Atheists.

Via a great post on MercatorNet (about which more soon), I just found the Monty Python video that is the immortal accompaniment to the “argumentative theory of reason.” If you haven’t seen it, watch; and if you have, watch again:

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., an HIV research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

I remember as a kid, I don’t know 8 or 9 years old I suppose, when I was finally able to read “real” dinosaur books. I was captivated by the number and variety of dinosaurs. As wildly as I could imagine them, they appeared in my books. From the long-necked Diplodocus to the terrifying Tyrannosaurus, there seemed to be a dinosaur for everyone’s taste. I became so enamored with dinosaurs that I would proclaim, if prompted, that I wanted to be an archaeologist! Of course, as an 8 year old, I didn’t realize that what I actually wanted to be was a paleontologist, and that didn’t matter. I wanted to be a scientist.

While my dream of becoming a scientist has come true, I did not achieve my goal of becoming a dinosaur digger. Instead, I find myself in the world of molecular biology, specifically today I am working as a virologist. I have taken up the fight against HIV, a particularly heinous virus that is so effective at eluding our immune system that scientists have been unable to find a cure in the 30+ years we’ve known about it.

The history of our knowledge of HIV has unfolded like a mystery novel. It began with a chance observation by Michael Gottlieb, a doctor in Los Angeles who was perplexed by an apparent outbreak of an unusual form of pneumonia in gay men who visited his and others’ offices. Normally, healthy men would not be stricken by this disease. Their bodies should be able to naturally fight it. The fact that they couldn’t clear the fungus growing in their lungs suggested that they were immune compromised. And so, as additional cases appeared, it became apparent that something was afoot. People were dying from what we normally considered non-life threatening infections. Scientists took to the case. Within 2 years, they had identified the human immun0deficiency virus (HIV), a virus that destroys the immune system and leads to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

It is stories like this that stimulate the imaginations of young people. Of course, this level of curiosity requires a certain basic understanding of biology, therefore it’s refreshing when a talented science communicator is able to make the information accessible to all. By sharing the story of the discovery of HIV and many other viruses, Carl Zimmer has accomplished this task with his most recent book, A Planet of Viruses. It is a collection of short essays about the history and science of many of the world’s tiniest not-quite-living organisms. For me, it read like the dinosaur books of my youth, a built-in surprise with each turn of the page.

Zimmer superbly delivers the variety and shear magnitude of the viral world. From the story of tobacco mosaic virus, which gave us the idea that something even smaller than bacteria could be a pathogen, to the discovery that the number of viruses in the ocean exceeds the number of stars in the universe by 7 orders of magnitude. Revelations of this nature inspire young people to become scientists and encourage those who have given up on science to take another look. That is the beauty of Zimmer’s book. It highlights the wonders of nature to the extent that you’ll want to pick up another book or take a class on virology.

In actuality, I believe every young virologist should read this book. Much like Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks reminded me that the HeLa cells with which I worked on a regular basis originated from a single very real human being, this work provides a backdrop that might give new scientists a different perspective on their research. Zimmer reminds the reader that there is history that has brought us to our current understanding of viruses.

Having taken several microbiology classes, many of Zimmer’s stories were familiar. However, I wanted to review just how much of the story I had gotten from my formal education. I pulled one of my old microbiology textbooks down from the shelf and found that I had really only been given the briefest account of the history. For example, my text summarized the story of the discovery of bacteriophages in two sentences and had completely omitted that which makes science great, the battle of ideas. My text made no mention of the debate over bacteriophages between Felix d’Herelle and Jules Bordet both of whom eventually independently received the Nobel Prize. Zimmer not only mentions this debate, but provides a more comprehensive story of how it was ultimately proven that bacteriophage are viruses that infect bacteria than I remember learning in graduate school.

Zimmer applies his craft of science communication so effectively that I forgot that I was relearning the history of viruses and felt as though I was re-discovering the wonders that led me to become a scientist in the first place.  Not to mention that the pictures satisfied my desire for the wild and weird just as those old hand-drawn dinosaur images had done in the days of my youth.

I highly recommend that you not only buy this book for yourself, but I encourage you to pass it on to the nearest teenager. You just might inspire the next Timothy Rowbotham.  Who’s that?  Read the book to find out.

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., an HIV research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action

Not much to say except this is a hilarious production designed to draw attention to the fracking debate.  To be clear, my biggest concerns are not centered on the hydraulic fracturing fluid per se.  I feel the recent PNAS paper highlighted the much more worrisome problem of methane gas leakage.  In fact, the PNAS paper stated that there was no evidence of contamination of drinking water with deep saline brine or fracking fluids.

The anti-fracking video compared to the pro-fracking video (below) represents an interesting dichotomy in communication tactics.

Which do you feel is more effective?