|
AITSE Newsletter
|
March 2010
|
|
|
Greetings!
Am I imagining things because my
baloney-detection antenna is up or is everyone
talking about the current issues with
scientific integrity? New
Scientist is suggesting that the
veracity of climate change should be honestly
investigated. The
Economist points out that, in contrast to
President Obama's claims, America does not
even monitor atmospheric carbon dioxide
because our
Orbiting Carbon Observatory "was lost on
launch".
Humanist Steve
Fuller is
suggesting that Intelligent Design should
receive impartial evaluation, not be arrogantly
dismissed as non-science (read more below).
In a similar vein,
Discovery Institute
launched a new push for academic
freedom.
Finally I recently spoke with a Newport Beach
physician
who, to my surprise, suddenly began
complaining about his inability to access
impartial information about medical
treatments because, "it is all controlled by
the almighty dollar." Whether or not you
agree with his diagnosis, it is sadly true
that many Americans are losing their trust in
the integrity of science, simply because they
perceive that science, medicine and
technology are controlled by ideology,
politics, and unthinking adherence to the
consensus view. In contrast, AITSE strives
both to
clearly present accurate information and
to give the public the freedom to consider all
options.
|
|
Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters
Advance orders are now being accepted for
Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity
Matters. This new book provides alarming
details on a government-sponsored attempt to
censor and manipulate science education. It
will both shock and inspire readers, as well
as providing solutions for restoring balanced
education and scientific integrity to our nation.
This is the true story of a university
biology professor who strove to teach
accurately and objectively and was punished
by being deprived of her job and her lifelong
dream of being a tenured professor. But the
abuse of power did not stop here. The
government was even able to take away her
legal representation by a prestigious law
firm. Amazingly, her lawyer also found
himself unable to get another job, possibly
because of his involvement in these types of
cases.
For the
first time in print, this riveting story
exposes the
reader to the inside details of Dr. Crocker's
story. Listen in as she discovers the
joys and challenges of teaching, finds
humility and adjusts her methods as her ideas
come into contact with the reality of the
classroom. Witness her shock at being
summarily removed from the lecture hall
without cause, her valiant attempt to fight
for her constitutional and academic rights,
and her own struggle with disillusionment as
she suffers persecution and the abuse of
justice perpetrated by the authorities.
Learn how the Darwinian machine tries to
crush those who cling fearlessly to the
scientific evidence and her message that the
right to be intellectually honest and
objective must be protected. Be anxious with
her as she
receives e-mail threats, her story draws
media attention, and she makes a
career-killing choice to be featured in a
blockbuster documentary. Rejoice with her
when she creatively adjusts her teaching
methods and platform making it possible to
impact the lives of many more people than she
ever dreamed of reaching.
Readers will find themselves moving from
disbelief to shocked outrage as Dr. Crocker's
story unfolds. Her compelling story
demonstrates that here, in the United States
of America, the university has become a place
where critical thinking is forbidden,
scientific integrity is often abandoned, and
our future scientific discoveries and medical
breakthroughs hang in the balance.
As Dr. Crocker says, "If the United States is
to compete in the technologically advanced
era, science cannot afford to be
narrow-minded or to be controlled by
financial, political or religious motives.
People must have both accurate information
and the freedom to consider all options.
Scientific integrity is essential to ensure
the continuation of our national way of
life." We need to be Free to Think!
|
|
A Plea for Scientific Integrity
I received notice of this well-written blog
post just after
sending the February update, but when I
noticed the topic AND the fact that it
referenced Steve
Fuller, a Humanist professor
from my alma mater, Warwick
University, I made sure to save it so that it
could be referenced by AITSE members.
The article discussed in the blog is entitled Science
Studies Goes Public and is Professor
Fuller's response to a paper by Dr. Christine
James who wrote about Evolution and
Conservative Christianity. Here Dr.
Fuller advocates the work of metascientists,
those he says "evaluate science from a
standpoint that does not presuppose the
legitimacy of the dominant paradigm. He or
she starts by asking why we pursue science in
the first place-the question of ends-and then
turns to consider the extent to which the
normal pursuit of science satisfies those
ends." In other words, a metascientist does
not base their science on consensus, but on
data and evidence. Sound familiar?
Why is this important? Fuller gives several
reasons, basing them on the current debate
between naturalistic evolution and
intelligent design (ID). First, to reject ID
because it is (erroneously) said to be
a religious position would be to negate the
work of the many scientists who based their
research on the assumption of the existence
of an intelligent designer. Second,
enforcement of the naturalistic paradigm
stifles academic freedom. That is, those who
dare to question the consensus are judged on
intentions rather than their science; some
even lose their jobs. Finally, Fuller points
out that the quality of debate is reduced. I
am sure many of us have witnessed how
ideologies and emotions instead of reasoned
argument dominate when this subject is
discussed.
For a fuller discussion, go to the ARN
blog--or better yet, read Fuller's article.
Either way the message is reinforced: Good
science must be based on evidence, not mere
consensus.
An Appeal for Authentic Science Studies
|
|
Simple Idea
Did you know that about 50% of surgeries end with
preventable complications? In this article,
the Dr. Atul Gawander, a surgeon who
practices in Boston, talks about a project on
trying to reduce the surgical death rate he
completed for the World Health
Organization. He came up with a simple answer--a
checklist. Just like pilots and astronauts
before take-off, drivers before racing,
hopefully students before turning in an
assignment, even women before entertaining!
In this remarkable new book, Dr. Atul
Gawander suggests that surgeons need to have
checklists, just like other professionals.
This simple solution was practiced in eight
hospitals worldwide and the result was a more
than a
33% reduction in surgical complications and a
significant decrease in death. Dr. Gawander's
department at Harvard has adopted this
practice, and he states that they catch a
mistake every week.
Unfortunately only 20% of
American hospitals have adopted this
life-saving practice. For me, I think I'll
ask about this as a pre-surgery priority!
'Checklist Manifesto' Author Pairs Simplicity With Lifesaving
|
|
|
|
Is the Darwinian Paradigm Necessary for Progress in Experimental Biology?
Dr. Phil Skell, AITSE-member, chemist,
Professor emeritus at Pennsylvania
State University and member National Academy
of Sciences is well-known for his
controversial opinion that the historical
sciences contribute nothing to experimental
biology. This is in direct opposition to a
statement
by Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing
in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution."
According to Dr. Skell in his article in
Politics and the
Life Sciences 27(2):47, "It is our knowledge
of how organisms actually operate--not
speculations about how they may have arisen
millions of years ago--that is essential to
doctors, veterinarians, farmers, and other
practitioners of science today." He, quite
rightly, points out that biohistory and
fossil records have very little to contribute
to, say, the design of a new antibiotic or
advances in the understanding of how tumors
are vascularized.
Of course, the usefulness of evolutionary
theory in providing a base for empirical
research depends on which definition of the
term "evolution" one subscribes to. That is,
the idea
that characteristics of populations change
over time in response to environmental
pressure (microevolution) is fairly
undisputed. As such,
few would assert that influenza virus does
not mutate and/or rearrange its genome so
that last year's immunity does not protect
against this year's virus. It follows that
studying the
"evolutionary" patterns of change in the
virus does help in predicting this year's
strain (although studying what strains are
appearing in the animal population probably
helps more).
Perhaps what Dr. Skell is objecting to is the
claim that macroevolution, the idea
that all life had a common ancestor, is
essential to advances in experimental
biology. This, after all, is the part of
evolutionary theory that is under debate.
But, here again it appears that the theory is
helpful--I myself have tested asthma
medication in animal models. If there was no
similarity between humans and animals, this
would be a pointless endeavor. The question that
then remains is whether the similarity between
mice and men is due to common ancestry or a
common designer--one to tackle another day!
Regardless, I would agree with Dr. Skell in
his statement that, "the overselling of the
theory of evolution...may have done a grave
disservice...to modern biology." Who would
dispute that "the core background for
students' understanding and participation in
future developments within biological science
is not the immersion in historical biology"?
Obviously, this time would be better spent
learning about what organisms inhabit the
earth, how they function and interact, and
the methodologies available to study them.
There are more than enough biological
facts out there, all of them understandable
without the addition of what Dr. Skell
calls the NAS's reductionist philosophical or
theological veneer of naturalistic evolution.
I suggest that our science education would be
greatly improved if teachers concentrated on
them.
Article is not available to the general public, but will appear on our website.
|
|
Quotes of the month
Alan Barth:
"Thought that is silenced is always
rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often
mistaken. That is why silencing of minorities
is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and
dissent are the indispensable antidote to
major delusions."
James Bryant Conant: "Diversity of
opinion within the framework of loyalty to
our free society is not only basic to a
university, but to the entire nation."
What more can I add to the above? We need to
be free to think. Scientific integrity IS
vital for the future of our nation.
|
|
AITSE Business Update
So, what is happening specifically? The bad
news first. With regard to our
nonprofit (501(c)3) status, there is no news
yet. However, there is good news about my
book, Free to Think. I've been sent
the typeset copy, have made the (hopefully)
final edits, and it should be out before
summer (read more on the left). If you want to
pre-order, just e-mail us at [email protected]
and let us know how many copies to reserve.
March and April
involve some travel for me. My trip to Texas
was postponed and was from March 8-17.
While there I had the opportunity to
interview/film several scientists/physicians,
meet with the AITSE board, and recruit new
AITSE members.
Then, from April 16-23, I will be in the DC
area, doing much of the same. If you would
like to
attend the member or scientist meeting in
Virginia, just drop me an
email and I'll let you know when and where
the meetings will be held.
Finally, I am planning a new book--one
containing stories of scientific integrity,
or lack of it, and outlining what the results
of action taken
were. If you have any stories that might be
useful for inclusion, just let me know
([email protected])! I always appreciate your
input.
|
|
Just for Kicks
Are you sick? Do you suffer from big feet?
Are you fat? Are you nice to strangers? Are
you religious--or not? Have you broken the
law? Are you mean to strangers? Don't worry.
None of
it is your fault--you can blame Darwin.
Obesity?
Big Feet? Blame Darwin
Evolution
and the nonlegal equivalent of aggressive
behavior.
Moral
Lessons, Down Aisle 9
I
wasn't going to include these articles, but
the story in the New York Times of how the
behavior of Wal-Mart shoppers can be
explained by evolutionary psychology pushed
me over the edge. But, to be fair, I am not a
psychologist. Therefore, I will include a
comment on these articles by a psychologist
in the next newsletter (if I can get a
volunteers for the job).
|
|
In closing, as always, thank you for your
past gifts and
support. It is a fact that AITSE cannot
function in its
efforts to educate to increase scientific
understanding
and integrity without contributions. Please
consider
helping us with a special donation or a
commitment to
give on a monthly basis. Please make checks
payable
to AITSE and send them to PO Box 15938, Newport
Beach, CA 92659. Alternatively, you can now
donate
on line through PayPal or credit card at
www.AITSE.org.
Sincerely,
Caroline Crocker, MSc, PhD
American Institute for Technology and Science Education
|
|
|