Back a couple years ago, embryonic stem cell research was a hot topic, with many posts and comments flying about both for and against.
One ofthe specious arguments often used by those opposed to the funding of said research was statements along the lines of "not one cure has ever been found using embryonic stem cells" - a textbook example of lying by omission, as the statement itself is true, so far as it goes. What gets left out, of course, is that given how recent the discovery of how to reliably culture these cells was, and the need to to basic research, then animal research, then limited human trials before anything can be okayed for general use, of course no "cure" had been developed yet.
For some reason the topic has moved off the back burner, but last week the FDA approved the first human trials involving embryonic stem cells, to be implanted in a small number of paraplegics who have no use of their legs. The primary aim is simply to see if the cells are safe for human use, but there is hope some use of the lower extremities might be restored.
We're still years away, if ever, from seeing wide-spread results. However, if this first trial at least can show the cells are not actively harmful, it will open the door wide to FDA approval to future human trials for a variety of possible applications. It's just another step down a long road, but it's a big step.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, January 28, 2008
A memorable event
Twenty-two years ago today I walked into the Flandrau planetarium for a lab associated with a Planetary Science class I was taking. Heading in I noticed there were a number of large televisions set up around the planetarium, and some classes of young school children already arriving, but none of this really registered on me.
Some 90 minutes later I exited the lab classroom back out into the main area, and stepped into chaos - just moments before the Space Shuttle Challenger had exploded in large, bright, billowing clouds of smoke for several hundred local first-, second- and third-graders to see on all those thoughtfully provided TVs. I, and many of my classmates, were immediately pressed into service as supplemental emergency crowd control.
It's really the first "I remember where I was" moment in my life. I wasn't born yet when Kennedy was shot, and am too young to recall MLK. I only have vague recollections of the moon landings. I wasn't really into music, so John Lennon's shooting didn't have as much impact on me as it did many of my friends. I do recall the famous Roger Staubach to Drew Pearson pass which led to the phrase "Hail Mary" being introduced to football jargon, but that pales in comparison.
No, for me, Challenger was the first such event. I can recall the images, the noise, clearly, as if it had all happened yesterday, or maybe, at most, last week.
We, as a species, have an imperative to explore. Not everyone possesses this trait ... but enough of us do that there is never a shortage of people willing to take that next step into the great unknown, to see what lies over the next hill, up the next river, across the next ocean. With our geographical frontiers now being largely discovered, many of those looking for new vistas to explore are looking for them internally - how can one improve one's memory, or live longer, or sleep less.
Space remains out there, waiting for us. It's a hideous, harsh, dangerous place, unbelievably cold, filled with cosmic radiation, completely unforgiving. Any little mis-step will kill you. All things considered, our safety record in space exploration has been excellent.
Yet we no longer reach for space. We first landed a man on the moon nearly 40 years ago. The last time a man walked on our moon was over 35 years ago. Our technology has become immeasurably better, yet our goals have become immeasurably smaller.
Twenty-two years ago I had hopes and expectations I might live to see us walk on Mars, pull mineral resources from asteroids. I am older and wiser now, and have no such dreams.
We talk of landing a man on the moon again maybe 10 years from now ... wohoo! Better than nothing I guess, but all it would mean is we would have once again reached the point we were at in 1969. There is speculation of manned lunar bases, treks to Mars. Worthwhile goals in my opinion, and I desperately hope they occur ... but I am a cynic now, and will believe it when it happens, not before.
We can not allow ourselves to be limited to just this one rocky orb circling this one small star in a large, dangerous galaxy. We must find some way to spread out, first to our solar system, then beyond, even if such trips take thousands or millions of years. If we don't, our species will die out, either slowly (through resource depletion and, eventually, the sun's destruction) or quickly (by, say, passing near a super-nova ... who knows, that event could already have occured and we have but years to live) ... and we will disappear from the annals of the universe having left no mark or trace of our existence, other than some odd radio signals which some distant, alien intelligence might one day stumble upon and wonder about.
Kennedy said we needed to go to the moon not because it was easy, but because it was hard. For some reason, we seem to have lost our appetite for achieving the "hard" things, and strive for lower-hanging fruit instead. We need to change that. We need to go back, not just to the moon but beyond it, not just because it is hard, but because it is necessary.
Some 90 minutes later I exited the lab classroom back out into the main area, and stepped into chaos - just moments before the Space Shuttle Challenger had exploded in large, bright, billowing clouds of smoke for several hundred local first-, second- and third-graders to see on all those thoughtfully provided TVs. I, and many of my classmates, were immediately pressed into service as supplemental emergency crowd control.
It's really the first "I remember where I was" moment in my life. I wasn't born yet when Kennedy was shot, and am too young to recall MLK. I only have vague recollections of the moon landings. I wasn't really into music, so John Lennon's shooting didn't have as much impact on me as it did many of my friends. I do recall the famous Roger Staubach to Drew Pearson pass which led to the phrase "Hail Mary" being introduced to football jargon, but that pales in comparison.
No, for me, Challenger was the first such event. I can recall the images, the noise, clearly, as if it had all happened yesterday, or maybe, at most, last week.
We, as a species, have an imperative to explore. Not everyone possesses this trait ... but enough of us do that there is never a shortage of people willing to take that next step into the great unknown, to see what lies over the next hill, up the next river, across the next ocean. With our geographical frontiers now being largely discovered, many of those looking for new vistas to explore are looking for them internally - how can one improve one's memory, or live longer, or sleep less.
Space remains out there, waiting for us. It's a hideous, harsh, dangerous place, unbelievably cold, filled with cosmic radiation, completely unforgiving. Any little mis-step will kill you. All things considered, our safety record in space exploration has been excellent.
Yet we no longer reach for space. We first landed a man on the moon nearly 40 years ago. The last time a man walked on our moon was over 35 years ago. Our technology has become immeasurably better, yet our goals have become immeasurably smaller.
Twenty-two years ago I had hopes and expectations I might live to see us walk on Mars, pull mineral resources from asteroids. I am older and wiser now, and have no such dreams.
We talk of landing a man on the moon again maybe 10 years from now ... wohoo! Better than nothing I guess, but all it would mean is we would have once again reached the point we were at in 1969. There is speculation of manned lunar bases, treks to Mars. Worthwhile goals in my opinion, and I desperately hope they occur ... but I am a cynic now, and will believe it when it happens, not before.
We can not allow ourselves to be limited to just this one rocky orb circling this one small star in a large, dangerous galaxy. We must find some way to spread out, first to our solar system, then beyond, even if such trips take thousands or millions of years. If we don't, our species will die out, either slowly (through resource depletion and, eventually, the sun's destruction) or quickly (by, say, passing near a super-nova ... who knows, that event could already have occured and we have but years to live) ... and we will disappear from the annals of the universe having left no mark or trace of our existence, other than some odd radio signals which some distant, alien intelligence might one day stumble upon and wonder about.
Kennedy said we needed to go to the moon not because it was easy, but because it was hard. For some reason, we seem to have lost our appetite for achieving the "hard" things, and strive for lower-hanging fruit instead. We need to change that. We need to go back, not just to the moon but beyond it, not just because it is hard, but because it is necessary.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Oil opportunities
With fears of a sustained recession widespread, oil prices have continued a recent decline. As I write this, the price per barrel is at $89.37, down $1.20. Prices had briefly cracked $100 per barrel a couple weeks ago.
Still, anything over $80 per barrel is supposed to be sufficient to spur private investment in alternative power research. Traditionally, this has included items like the new solar powersheets which Nanosolar began shipping last month, alternative bio-fuels like ethanol, or wind-power such as the wind turbine farms one sees from I-10 when making the drive out to LA.
In the wind-power arena, however, I can't help but be fascinated by the German company SkySails, which attempts to make what was old new again by harnessing the win to help modern vessels traverse the oceans, much as our ancestors did in the not-so-distant past.
These aren't sails in the traditional sense. Instead, the company attaches massive parachutes to the ships, said parachutes to be used in addition to, rather than in lieu of, standard motive power. We aren't talking about small ships here - the web site claims the devices can be added to cargo ships 320 meters in length (roughly 1000 feet) and weighing many, many tons (more when loaded) . The company claims savings of between 10% and 35% on an annual basis, provides an example video of the device in use and says it will begin major production this year.
I'm suspicious about the claims ... those savings seem high to me when compared to a ship making a lengthy trans-oceanic crossing in the same time as a ship not equipped with the device. I'd want to see some serious numbers crunched before I bought in. Still, the (fanciful) image of a massive, laden container ship para-sailing across the whitecaps seems quite evocative to me.
Still, anything over $80 per barrel is supposed to be sufficient to spur private investment in alternative power research. Traditionally, this has included items like the new solar powersheets which Nanosolar began shipping last month, alternative bio-fuels like ethanol, or wind-power such as the wind turbine farms one sees from I-10 when making the drive out to LA.
In the wind-power arena, however, I can't help but be fascinated by the German company SkySails, which attempts to make what was old new again by harnessing the win to help modern vessels traverse the oceans, much as our ancestors did in the not-so-distant past.
These aren't sails in the traditional sense. Instead, the company attaches massive parachutes to the ships, said parachutes to be used in addition to, rather than in lieu of, standard motive power. We aren't talking about small ships here - the web site claims the devices can be added to cargo ships 320 meters in length (roughly 1000 feet) and weighing many, many tons (more when loaded) . The company claims savings of between 10% and 35% on an annual basis, provides an example video of the device in use and says it will begin major production this year.
I'm suspicious about the claims ... those savings seem high to me when compared to a ship making a lengthy trans-oceanic crossing in the same time as a ship not equipped with the device. I'd want to see some serious numbers crunched before I bought in. Still, the (fanciful) image of a massive, laden container ship para-sailing across the whitecaps seems quite evocative to me.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
More credit that isn't due
I posted last month about the inappropriateness of the administration trying to claim some of the credit for recent stem cell research which may allow the cultivation of pluripotent stem cells without the need to destroy human embryos.
Late last week, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who knows a great deal about spin but apparently very little about science, authored a column lauding Bush's foresight on the matter, and claiming vindication for his his approach. Krauthammer ends the piece by lauding "moral disquiet" of scientist James Thomson, who is one of the leading researchers of embryonic stem cells and who led the Wisconsin team which announced the breakthrough last month (along with a separate Japanese team).
Well, Thomson had an op-ed piece of his own at the Washington Post yesterday, where he correctly trashes the Krauthammer column as the complete piece of s*** it is. He notes the Japanese team developed it's research independent of any decisions by Bush or his administration, and that teams in a number of other countries unaffected by US limitations are progressing far faster than US researchers are.
Thomson also notes the impossibility developing stem cells with the same properties of ESCs without first understanding what those properties are, a process the President's policies can only have hurt, not possibly helped.
In other words, this research has proceeded despite, not because of, Bush's "line in the sand", and in all likelihood has been hampered by those limitations, although we can never know for sure. If there had been more government funding for more stem cell lines, might this achivement have been reached three years ago?
Thomson (and his co-author Alan Leshner) conclude their piece by pointing out the uncertainty that their research will fully pan out, something we won't know for several years, minimum, and encourage Congress to override the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It won't happen - too many Republicans in Congress are more committed to supporting the President and furthering their own ideologies than they are to actually furthering a policy a considerable majority of their constituents support.
Maybe though, just maybe, the Thomson op-ed will help stop the wave of idiocy trying to allot some credit to the President for a breakthrough his policies did nothing to help, and much to hinder.
Late last week, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who knows a great deal about spin but apparently very little about science, authored a column lauding Bush's foresight on the matter, and claiming vindication for his his approach. Krauthammer ends the piece by lauding "moral disquiet" of scientist James Thomson, who is one of the leading researchers of embryonic stem cells and who led the Wisconsin team which announced the breakthrough last month (along with a separate Japanese team).
Well, Thomson had an op-ed piece of his own at the Washington Post yesterday, where he correctly trashes the Krauthammer column as the complete piece of s*** it is. He notes the Japanese team developed it's research independent of any decisions by Bush or his administration, and that teams in a number of other countries unaffected by US limitations are progressing far faster than US researchers are.
Thomson also notes the impossibility developing stem cells with the same properties of ESCs without first understanding what those properties are, a process the President's policies can only have hurt, not possibly helped.
In other words, this research has proceeded despite, not because of, Bush's "line in the sand", and in all likelihood has been hampered by those limitations, although we can never know for sure. If there had been more government funding for more stem cell lines, might this achivement have been reached three years ago?
Thomson (and his co-author Alan Leshner) conclude their piece by pointing out the uncertainty that their research will fully pan out, something we won't know for several years, minimum, and encourage Congress to override the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It won't happen - too many Republicans in Congress are more committed to supporting the President and furthering their own ideologies than they are to actually furthering a policy a considerable majority of their constituents support.
Maybe though, just maybe, the Thomson op-ed will help stop the wave of idiocy trying to allot some credit to the President for a breakthrough his policies did nothing to help, and much to hinder.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Credit where credit isn't due
The NY Times has a follow-up article on the recent announcement of a stem cell research breakthrough which may allow the creation of pluripotent stem cells without the need to destroy human embryos. The article provides some historical background, and some context as to what the breakthrough potentially means for future research and development in this country.
Midway through the article comes this:
1. While the recent announcement was a joint one between teams from Japan and Wisconsin, it is in fact the Japanese team which has been the primary moving force in this line of research. It was their seminal announcement last year of a method which worked in mice that both teams built on to apply to human cells.
Bush's views and policies had nothing whatsoever to do with the Japanese research.
2. These developments would have been entirely impossible without initial research with actual embryonic stem cells. You can't create a method for developing cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells unless you actually know what those properties are.
Bush's policies have done nothing whatsoever to promote research of pluripotent stem cells in this country, much to hinder it. There is a reason the leading research in this field comes primarily from Japan and South Korea.
Sadly, there is nothing unusual in this President taking credit for accomplishments he had nothing to do with, or weren't complete. "Mission Accomplished" anyone?
Midway through the article comes this:
On Tuesday, senior aides to Mr. Bush said he drove the experiments by holding his moral ground.
“This is very much in accord with the president’s vision from the get-go,” said Karl Zinsmeister, a domestic policy adviser to Mr. Bush who kept the president apprised of the work. “I don’t think there’s any doubt that the president’s drawing of lines on cloning and embryo use was a positive factor in making this come to fruition.”
Of course, this completely overlooks two points:
1. While the recent announcement was a joint one between teams from Japan and Wisconsin, it is in fact the Japanese team which has been the primary moving force in this line of research. It was their seminal announcement last year of a method which worked in mice that both teams built on to apply to human cells.
Bush's views and policies had nothing whatsoever to do with the Japanese research.
2. These developments would have been entirely impossible without initial research with actual embryonic stem cells. You can't create a method for developing cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells unless you actually know what those properties are.
Bush's policies have done nothing whatsoever to promote research of pluripotent stem cells in this country, much to hinder it. There is a reason the leading research in this field comes primarily from Japan and South Korea.
Sadly, there is nothing unusual in this President taking credit for accomplishments he had nothing to do with, or weren't complete. "Mission Accomplished" anyone?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Skin Cell Stem Cells
The NY Times, among others, has an article this morning discussing a possible new manner of gathering pluripotent stem cells for research purposes which doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos. I recall the announcement last year by the Japanese team of a method which worked in mice, and claims they saw no reason the approach would not work with human cells. Apparently they were correct.
This is a great step forward as, if the approach is ultimately found to be successful, it removes any real ethical concern to embryonic stem cell research.
Still, it unsurprisingly a spawn of ignorant posts and associated comments from certain parts of the blogosphere such as this one.
The author, who links to the same Time piece, is wrong in her very first sentence: "And once again, the news has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research:"
I fact, the breakthrough has everything to do with embryonic stem cell research. The two groups are claiming to be able to create cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells, just via a method which uses skin cells as the starting point rather than blastocysts.
The comment that really gets to me though, is the statement (oft-repeated by those opposed to embryonic stem cell research) "... to date, there have been no “cures” developed on the embryonic stem cell research front. Not a single one."
She's correct of course, but is intentionally obfuscating the matter by not discussing why there are no cures. It's a straw man claim. She knows that, she just doesn't care, which is generally true of most any pundit who makes a similar statement.
Cures or treatments don't just magically appear, they are developed over the span of years. It's been less than ten years (as a comparison, research in adult stem cells has been going on for decades, since the early 60's) since the seminal paper describing how embryonic stem cells could be isolated and developed (and thus viable for research purposes) was written (1998).
After that, you have to do the initial basic research and get it published and reviewed. Then you need to get approval for animal trials, get those results analyzed and published, then apply for permission for human trials, do those, analyze and publish again ... and only then, if the results seem promising, can you actually talk about developing a formal cure or treatment approach.
This is a 12-15 year process minimum. We're in year nine. It's like asking a 12-year-old why they haven't finished their college degree yet. Saying they haven't finished their degree may be factually true, but lies by inferring it's a failure on their part rather than just a function of the process.
In comments to that same post, some moron says: "Now we have one less reason to kill babies. Expect the leftards to get angry."
No baby has ever been killed to further embryonic stem cell research. Some number of embryos have been destroyed .... however, those embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, stem cell research or no. The embryos used for these purposes were among those headed for the incinerator. Even if one is among those who think a simple blastocyst is a human being, it doesn't change the fact those blastocysts were to be destroyed with or without stem cell research being involved. That being the case, what possible rational argument can be made against their destruction possibly being used to generate some good in the end?
This is a great step forward as, if the approach is ultimately found to be successful, it removes any real ethical concern to embryonic stem cell research.
Still, it unsurprisingly a spawn of ignorant posts and associated comments from certain parts of the blogosphere such as this one.
The author, who links to the same Time piece, is wrong in her very first sentence: "And once again, the news has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research:"
I fact, the breakthrough has everything to do with embryonic stem cell research. The two groups are claiming to be able to create cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells, just via a method which uses skin cells as the starting point rather than blastocysts.
The comment that really gets to me though, is the statement (oft-repeated by those opposed to embryonic stem cell research) "... to date, there have been no “cures” developed on the embryonic stem cell research front. Not a single one."
She's correct of course, but is intentionally obfuscating the matter by not discussing why there are no cures. It's a straw man claim. She knows that, she just doesn't care, which is generally true of most any pundit who makes a similar statement.
Cures or treatments don't just magically appear, they are developed over the span of years. It's been less than ten years (as a comparison, research in adult stem cells has been going on for decades, since the early 60's) since the seminal paper describing how embryonic stem cells could be isolated and developed (and thus viable for research purposes) was written (1998).
After that, you have to do the initial basic research and get it published and reviewed. Then you need to get approval for animal trials, get those results analyzed and published, then apply for permission for human trials, do those, analyze and publish again ... and only then, if the results seem promising, can you actually talk about developing a formal cure or treatment approach.
This is a 12-15 year process minimum. We're in year nine. It's like asking a 12-year-old why they haven't finished their college degree yet. Saying they haven't finished their degree may be factually true, but lies by inferring it's a failure on their part rather than just a function of the process.
In comments to that same post, some moron says: "Now we have one less reason to kill babies. Expect the leftards to get angry."
No baby has ever been killed to further embryonic stem cell research. Some number of embryos have been destroyed .... however, those embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, stem cell research or no. The embryos used for these purposes were among those headed for the incinerator. Even if one is among those who think a simple blastocyst is a human being, it doesn't change the fact those blastocysts were to be destroyed with or without stem cell research being involved. That being the case, what possible rational argument can be made against their destruction possibly being used to generate some good in the end?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Identity Problems
New Scientist magazine announced yesterday two independent teams of researchers had developed quantum computers capable of implementing Shor's algorithm. This is a real problem for internet security.
Digital security is built upon various mathematical algorithms. Without going into a whole lot of detail (for the detail-curious, information about the RSA public key encryption algorithm can be read here; RSA is just one of many different algorithmic approaches), many algorithms tend to rely on using prime factorization of very large numbers. To break down a given key, you would need to be able to quickly compute all the prime factors for that number. For very large numbers (several hundred digits), the computation time necessary for this has been such that keys remain essentially secure.
Now that changes.
Shor's algorithm is an approach which allows for non-random determination of the factors of very large numbers (i.e., you don't have to "guess" at factors). It's computationally heavy, but use of quantum computers allows the algorithm to run in polynomial time. I.e., the amount of time to break a given key using a quantum computer would be, at most, the square root of the amount of time it takes now. This speeds things up hugely.
Example: Let's say a given key on Sept. 11 took 1 million seconds to calculate the necessary factors to break. 1 million seconds is roughly equal to 11.5 days. In polynomial time, that takes, at most, 1000 seconds ... or about 16 minutes. Maximum. It could be much faster.
There is a lot of personal data out there being held by banks, businesses, governments which is protected with public key encryption. Names, birth dates, addresses, mothers maiden names, bank account numbers, ssn's, credit cards, etc. Two days ago, that data looked pretty secure.
Today, that data looks pretty vulnerable.
Digital security is built upon various mathematical algorithms. Without going into a whole lot of detail (for the detail-curious, information about the RSA public key encryption algorithm can be read here; RSA is just one of many different algorithmic approaches), many algorithms tend to rely on using prime factorization of very large numbers. To break down a given key, you would need to be able to quickly compute all the prime factors for that number. For very large numbers (several hundred digits), the computation time necessary for this has been such that keys remain essentially secure.
Now that changes.
Shor's algorithm is an approach which allows for non-random determination of the factors of very large numbers (i.e., you don't have to "guess" at factors). It's computationally heavy, but use of quantum computers allows the algorithm to run in polynomial time. I.e., the amount of time to break a given key using a quantum computer would be, at most, the square root of the amount of time it takes now. This speeds things up hugely.
Example: Let's say a given key on Sept. 11 took 1 million seconds to calculate the necessary factors to break. 1 million seconds is roughly equal to 11.5 days. In polynomial time, that takes, at most, 1000 seconds ... or about 16 minutes. Maximum. It could be much faster.
There is a lot of personal data out there being held by banks, businesses, governments which is protected with public key encryption. Names, birth dates, addresses, mothers maiden names, bank account numbers, ssn's, credit cards, etc. Two days ago, that data looked pretty secure.
Today, that data looks pretty vulnerable.
Friday, August 3, 2007
(Im)Material Consciousness?
Over at x4mr's blog there have been a couple of posts (here and here ... read the comments too) and comments discussing the underlying nature of consciousness. Well, really almost any x4mr post is interesting and thought-provoking in one way or another, but I find this discussion particularly enjoyable, for whatever reason.
X4mr, who clearly has thought about this in far greater depth than I ever have, asserts there is more to human consciousness (or any form of consciousness) than simply that which is found in the physical realm - that feelings, intuition, thoughts, sensations all have some non-physical element to them. For example, how is the fact I find this set of threads on x4mr's site "particularly enjoyable" denoted in any physical sense?
Well, I don't have a firm position on this question, but what position I do have is on the other side of the fence, so I am going to attempt to make a case that consciousness does ultimately come down to a question of matter. (I'll note I don't have my feet firmly planted in this position, and it's entirely possible that, over the next few months as x4mr expands on his views he will persuade me to his camp - in which case this post will likely be viewed as some horrible embarrassment).
Let's start by considering the universe as a whole - a big task, I know. However, no matter how vast the universe is, all the physical elements of it can be broken down into some collection of very small parts: photons, gluons, quarks, etc. One effect of this is the sum total of all the physical elements of the universe comprises a countable set of particles. A very large countable set, but a countable set nonetheless. I would expect that set would consist of substantially less than a googolplex of elements.
The issue becomes tying non-material things (such as thoughts) to the material world (such as our actions). This is the mind-body problem, one of the great questions of philosophy, and for which there is yet no real consensus or agreement as to a solution. As x4mr notes, there are many great minds who have determined "There has to be more to reality than the physical world." However, many great minds have also decided concluded only the physical exists.
Ultimately, memories, thoughts, sensations are denoted by electrochemical reactions in our brains. One argument in favor of a physical approach would be to simply note those reactions are defined by a series of interactions between very small particles. An electric current is the flow of electrically charged particles, and those particles are physical. Chemistry is the study of interactions of various forms of matter, and matter is physical.
Further, in recent decades we have been able to do more and more research on the brain. We can tell which parts of the brain are in use when different thoughts are occurring, different things are being perceived. We can tell what physical locations of the brain are responsible for what. Suffer brain damage to some small, specific part of your brain, and you may lose short-term memory, while still being able to recall your childhood.
If I physically remove part of your brain, why would your ability to recall short-term memories be permanently affected unless, in the end, this ability was described by physical processes?
Our greater understanding of the physical working of the brain is further exemplified by the recent news of a man regaining significant functionality after use electrical stimulation of specific parts of his brain. Doctors were capable of doing that because they were capable of isolating the physical locations within his brain which needed stimulating. They didn't stimulate non-physical locations.
It's inarguable consciousness has, at a minimum, a physical element. The only question is whether or not there is something more to it. X4mr and other dualists believe there is. Monists, or specifically physicalists, believe there is not.
Well known sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke (of "2001 - A Space Odyssey" fame) formulated three laws. The best known is the third: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I assert recent scientific advances/studies, as well as Occam's Razor, lend increasing support to the physicalist view. Things like how memory and thoughts work, how the mind and body interact, only seem magical now because our science isn't advanced enough ... yet. We're getting there.
X4mr, who clearly has thought about this in far greater depth than I ever have, asserts there is more to human consciousness (or any form of consciousness) than simply that which is found in the physical realm - that feelings, intuition, thoughts, sensations all have some non-physical element to them. For example, how is the fact I find this set of threads on x4mr's site "particularly enjoyable" denoted in any physical sense?
Well, I don't have a firm position on this question, but what position I do have is on the other side of the fence, so I am going to attempt to make a case that consciousness does ultimately come down to a question of matter. (I'll note I don't have my feet firmly planted in this position, and it's entirely possible that, over the next few months as x4mr expands on his views he will persuade me to his camp - in which case this post will likely be viewed as some horrible embarrassment).
Let's start by considering the universe as a whole - a big task, I know. However, no matter how vast the universe is, all the physical elements of it can be broken down into some collection of very small parts: photons, gluons, quarks, etc. One effect of this is the sum total of all the physical elements of the universe comprises a countable set of particles. A very large countable set, but a countable set nonetheless. I would expect that set would consist of substantially less than a googolplex of elements.
The issue becomes tying non-material things (such as thoughts) to the material world (such as our actions). This is the mind-body problem, one of the great questions of philosophy, and for which there is yet no real consensus or agreement as to a solution. As x4mr notes, there are many great minds who have determined "There has to be more to reality than the physical world." However, many great minds have also decided concluded only the physical exists.
Ultimately, memories, thoughts, sensations are denoted by electrochemical reactions in our brains. One argument in favor of a physical approach would be to simply note those reactions are defined by a series of interactions between very small particles. An electric current is the flow of electrically charged particles, and those particles are physical. Chemistry is the study of interactions of various forms of matter, and matter is physical.
Further, in recent decades we have been able to do more and more research on the brain. We can tell which parts of the brain are in use when different thoughts are occurring, different things are being perceived. We can tell what physical locations of the brain are responsible for what. Suffer brain damage to some small, specific part of your brain, and you may lose short-term memory, while still being able to recall your childhood.
If I physically remove part of your brain, why would your ability to recall short-term memories be permanently affected unless, in the end, this ability was described by physical processes?
Our greater understanding of the physical working of the brain is further exemplified by the recent news of a man regaining significant functionality after use electrical stimulation of specific parts of his brain. Doctors were capable of doing that because they were capable of isolating the physical locations within his brain which needed stimulating. They didn't stimulate non-physical locations.
It's inarguable consciousness has, at a minimum, a physical element. The only question is whether or not there is something more to it. X4mr and other dualists believe there is. Monists, or specifically physicalists, believe there is not.
Well known sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke (of "2001 - A Space Odyssey" fame) formulated three laws. The best known is the third: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I assert recent scientific advances/studies, as well as Occam's Razor, lend increasing support to the physicalist view. Things like how memory and thoughts work, how the mind and body interact, only seem magical now because our science isn't advanced enough ... yet. We're getting there.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Stem Cell Stupidity
Congress has sent another bill (the Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2007) to the White House which would widen the the ability of government to fund research using pluripotent stem cells, which are derived from human embryos. President Bush has carried out his announced intent and vetoed the bill, despite clear majorities favoring it not just in both houses of Congress but amongst the electorate as well.
A White House press secretary claimed the decision was about policy, not politics. A White House press secretary lied through his teeth, and probably smiled while he was going it. Policy implies some well thought out, overarching plan, but there is nothing well thought out about this decision. Unless stupidity is the administration policy ... which, come to think of it, explains a great deal about the past six years.
While announcing the veto, the President pushed increased funding for research into other means to develop pluripotent stem cells. In doing so, he was referring to a recently announced breakthrough by a team in Japan (and confirmed by other researchers) showing an easy means for creating pluripotent stem cells from skin cells. This is a huge, huge discovery, and could eventually be the perfect solution to all the moral issues opponents of stem cell research cite (since the harvesting of these cells destroys the embryo in the process). But ...
... the research so far has only been shown to work with mice. Given our chief executive's demonstrated lack of scientific acuity, he likely isn't aware a simple fact which, I am sure, immediately leaps out to you, dear reader -- namely, mice are not the same as humans.
We most definitely should be funding research in this area, but in addition to funding current stem cell research, not in place of it. Even if the skin cell reprogramming research eventually pans out (and I sincerely hope it does), we are talking about years of research and development to reach the point where such cells can be developed and used for human research. The approach may not work with human cells, or it may work, but the resulting cells aren't pluripotent, just to name two things which might derail the process. Meanwhile, our government won't be making any significant further progress down the trail we already know works for generating pluripotent cells.
Research could be set back years.
Stock market investors are told not to put all your money into a single company. Instead, you are encouraged to diversify, to invest in a wide range of different companies, and across different industries. Science research works (or should work) similarly -- you don't bet everything on one approach. Instead, you put some resources into a variety of approaches, giving yourself more opportunities to hit it big, and to protect yourself from a single catasrtophic failure.
Somehow, this simple concept, one which most any sixth-grader is capable of understanding, seems to be beyond the grasp of our current head of state.
President Bush has repeatedly stated his objection to such research in moral terms, and this argument would care significant weight with me (I would understand it, even though I would disagree with it), if it weren't for the simple fact the embryos used for any additional research would be destroyed regardless!
Here is the relevant text from the bill (pay special attention to item #2):
The President's veto is not going to save a single embryo. They are going to be destroyed, not saved. Not single additional child will be born, who other wise would not have been, as a result
of his refusal to sign the bill. At the absolute best, his position will be morally neutral -- no additional harm or benefit will have derived from it.
However, if a single person suffers a single extra day because research which might otherwise have helped him was delayed by this veto, the President will have caused irreparable harm. In the worst case, that harm might include untold number of deaths. Where is the morality in that?
To most of the nation, taking something which is otherwise going be destroyed and putting it to some use, particularly a use which might, ultimately, be of incalculable benefit, would simply be a no-brainer decision. Of course you would do it.
Unfortunately, our current President has no brains.
A White House press secretary claimed the decision was about policy, not politics. A White House press secretary lied through his teeth, and probably smiled while he was going it. Policy implies some well thought out, overarching plan, but there is nothing well thought out about this decision. Unless stupidity is the administration policy ... which, come to think of it, explains a great deal about the past six years.
While announcing the veto, the President pushed increased funding for research into other means to develop pluripotent stem cells. In doing so, he was referring to a recently announced breakthrough by a team in Japan (and confirmed by other researchers) showing an easy means for creating pluripotent stem cells from skin cells. This is a huge, huge discovery, and could eventually be the perfect solution to all the moral issues opponents of stem cell research cite (since the harvesting of these cells destroys the embryo in the process). But ...
... the research so far has only been shown to work with mice. Given our chief executive's demonstrated lack of scientific acuity, he likely isn't aware a simple fact which, I am sure, immediately leaps out to you, dear reader -- namely, mice are not the same as humans.
We most definitely should be funding research in this area, but in addition to funding current stem cell research, not in place of it. Even if the skin cell reprogramming research eventually pans out (and I sincerely hope it does), we are talking about years of research and development to reach the point where such cells can be developed and used for human research. The approach may not work with human cells, or it may work, but the resulting cells aren't pluripotent, just to name two things which might derail the process. Meanwhile, our government won't be making any significant further progress down the trail we already know works for generating pluripotent cells.
Research could be set back years.
Stock market investors are told not to put all your money into a single company. Instead, you are encouraged to diversify, to invest in a wide range of different companies, and across different industries. Science research works (or should work) similarly -- you don't bet everything on one approach. Instead, you put some resources into a variety of approaches, giving yourself more opportunities to hit it big, and to protect yourself from a single catasrtophic failure.
Somehow, this simple concept, one which most any sixth-grader is capable of understanding, seems to be beyond the grasp of our current head of state.
President Bush has repeatedly stated his objection to such research in moral terms, and this argument would care significant weight with me (I would understand it, even though I would disagree with it), if it weren't for the simple fact the embryos used for any additional research would be destroyed regardless!
Here is the relevant text from the bill (pay special attention to item #2):
(b) Ethical Requirements.—“Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
“(1)
“The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
“(2)
“Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
“(3)
“The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donations.
The President's veto is not going to save a single embryo. They are going to be destroyed, not saved. Not single additional child will be born, who other wise would not have been, as a result
of his refusal to sign the bill. At the absolute best, his position will be morally neutral -- no additional harm or benefit will have derived from it.
However, if a single person suffers a single extra day because research which might otherwise have helped him was delayed by this veto, the President will have caused irreparable harm. In the worst case, that harm might include untold number of deaths. Where is the morality in that?
To most of the nation, taking something which is otherwise going be destroyed and putting it to some use, particularly a use which might, ultimately, be of incalculable benefit, would simply be a no-brainer decision. Of course you would do it.
Unfortunately, our current President has no brains.
Friday, June 8, 2007
A museum for everyone
The creation museum has opened in Petersburg, KY, and has been placed at the very top of my "things to do" list the next time I find myself in the area.
The museum cost $27 million to build, and features animatronic dinosaurs amongst a host of other exhibits. Apparently, our forefathers used saddles to ride triceratops, something I most definitely did not know before seeing this picture (other pictures of the museum can be found here). The pictures come accompanied with this description of a visit to the place.
How could anyone pass this up? For die-hard, conservative Christians and committed Creationists, it would seem this is a must-see for the purported "educational" value. For others such as myself, it's must-see for the heights of unintentional comedy it scales. (I easily reach Serious Funny, bordering on Wicked Funny).
The museum cost $27 million to build, and features animatronic dinosaurs amongst a host of other exhibits. Apparently, our forefathers used saddles to ride triceratops, something I most definitely did not know before seeing this picture (other pictures of the museum can be found here). The pictures come accompanied with this description of a visit to the place.
How could anyone pass this up? For die-hard, conservative Christians and committed Creationists, it would seem this is a must-see for the purported "educational" value. For others such as myself, it's must-see for the heights of unintentional comedy it scales. (I easily reach Serious Funny, bordering on Wicked Funny).
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
This and That
1) Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) has passed away following a battle with leukemia. He was 74. My sincere condolences to his family.
2) "Scooter" Libby has just been handed a 30-month sentence for committing perjury in regards to the Valerie Plame affair. The defense has been arguing for probation while federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asking for 30-37 months. Clearly, Judge Reggie Walton sided with the prosecution in this matter. My guess is we'll see all those "rule of law" advocates on Fox talk shows screaming bloody murder about the length of the sentence -- remember, "rule of law" isn't supposed to apply to elite, Caucasian, Christian, conservative males. Just to the "little people".
Judge Walton scheduled another hearing next Thursday to address the issue of whether or not Libby can remain free on bail while appealing the decision. Typically this is not allowed in Federal cases, but this isn't a typical Federal case either. Should Libby be allowed to remain out on bail, it's extremely unlikely he would serve any actual jail time -- by the time the appeals had tun out, President Bush would be ending her term of office and would be likely to provide a pardon for his perjuring pal.
3) I know it may not be very "liberal" of me, but I don't have a real problem with the "point" system as proposed for potential immigrants.
The main objection seems to be the (lack of) weight provided for potential immigrants who have family members who are already US citizens. As things stand, out of a maximum 100 points, having a family member who is a US citizen is worth 10. Far more points are available for education, or for possessing needed job skills.
A number of people, especially Hispanics, are up in arms, and phrases like "separating families" are getting thrown about. This claim would make sense to me if there weren't provisions to extend citizenship to spouses and minor children of individuals who gain US citizenship. Frankly, we should be providing significantly more weight to, say, a candidate with a Masters degree in mechanical engineering rather than, say, a candidate who has a junior high education and no necessary job skills, but who's Uncle already happens to be a citizen.
4) A New York Times article this morning mentions the discovery of chicken bones discovered along the Pacific coast of South America that predate the arrival of Europeans. This is significant because chickens are not native to the Americas, and it had been previously thought chickens were likely not introduced prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the late 1400's.
A minority had argued chickens were instead introduced to the New World by earlier Polynesian travelers, and this new finding strongly bolsters that view. The bones (and some associated pottery shards) date between 1304 and 1424.
It had been known since Thor Heyerdahl navigated the Kon Tiki from South America to Polynesia in 1947 that trans-Pacific journeys between the two cultures were at least theoretically possible, but apparently this is the first firm archaeological evidence for contact between them.
2) "Scooter" Libby has just been handed a 30-month sentence for committing perjury in regards to the Valerie Plame affair. The defense has been arguing for probation while federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asking for 30-37 months. Clearly, Judge Reggie Walton sided with the prosecution in this matter. My guess is we'll see all those "rule of law" advocates on Fox talk shows screaming bloody murder about the length of the sentence -- remember, "rule of law" isn't supposed to apply to elite, Caucasian, Christian, conservative males. Just to the "little people".
Judge Walton scheduled another hearing next Thursday to address the issue of whether or not Libby can remain free on bail while appealing the decision. Typically this is not allowed in Federal cases, but this isn't a typical Federal case either. Should Libby be allowed to remain out on bail, it's extremely unlikely he would serve any actual jail time -- by the time the appeals had tun out, President Bush would be ending her term of office and would be likely to provide a pardon for his perjuring pal.
3) I know it may not be very "liberal" of me, but I don't have a real problem with the "point" system as proposed for potential immigrants.
The main objection seems to be the (lack of) weight provided for potential immigrants who have family members who are already US citizens. As things stand, out of a maximum 100 points, having a family member who is a US citizen is worth 10. Far more points are available for education, or for possessing needed job skills.
A number of people, especially Hispanics, are up in arms, and phrases like "separating families" are getting thrown about. This claim would make sense to me if there weren't provisions to extend citizenship to spouses and minor children of individuals who gain US citizenship. Frankly, we should be providing significantly more weight to, say, a candidate with a Masters degree in mechanical engineering rather than, say, a candidate who has a junior high education and no necessary job skills, but who's Uncle already happens to be a citizen.
4) A New York Times article this morning mentions the discovery of chicken bones discovered along the Pacific coast of South America that predate the arrival of Europeans. This is significant because chickens are not native to the Americas, and it had been previously thought chickens were likely not introduced prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the late 1400's.
A minority had argued chickens were instead introduced to the New World by earlier Polynesian travelers, and this new finding strongly bolsters that view. The bones (and some associated pottery shards) date between 1304 and 1424.
It had been known since Thor Heyerdahl navigated the Kon Tiki from South America to Polynesia in 1947 that trans-Pacific journeys between the two cultures were at least theoretically possible, but apparently this is the first firm archaeological evidence for contact between them.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Various Items
I have a small list of items to get down on ... paper(?) ... today.
1) Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (R-Cubed) reports that the most recent gossip making the rounds has Rick Renzi resigning from the US House of Representatives by Friday. That would be tomorrow.
There was a great deal of discussion about potential issues Renzi had in the run-up to the election last November. Predictably, left-leaning blogs were all over it (admittedly, mostly with hopeful speculation in place of any actual hard information), while right-leaning one's tended to downplay it. For example, right-leaning Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit had the following about the affair on Oct. 24, 2006:
The Arizona Republic ran a story on Oct. 26 (unfortunately, now only available by paying for access to their archive) essentially dismissing the entire issue.
Well, time passes and we zoom ahead to last week's Wall Street Journal article about the matter, and the problems being hinted at last fall are given greater substantiation, to the extent that, within a week, the buzz is whether Renzi can survive the month, much less his full-term. It's embarrassing (or, at least, should be), particularly given how long the original hints have been out there, that it takes a news outlet from New York to break the story rather than one of our in-state papers or stations.
2) As an extra-special bonus related to item 1, the entire affair opens the door further to accusations that Paul Charlton, the US District Attorney who was overseeing the Renzi investigation before being asked to tender his resignation as part of the Gonzales affair, was asked to step down as a means of halting, or at least delaying until after the election, any possible indictment in the case.
Given the amount of time which has passed since the election, I find it doubtful the DA's office was on the verge of announcing an indictment last Oct. or Nov. However, given the timing Charlton's placement on the now-infamous "firing list" in Sept. 2006, it certainly seems increasingly likely the two events -- the Renzi investigation and Charlton's firing -- are closely related.
3) Leading Republican Presidential candidate said the following a couple days ago (via Poltitic0):
Whether or not Giuliani is the best candidate remains open to question (particularly after making the above statement), but it's nice to know that _all_ that is needed to keep America safe from terrorism is a President with an "R" representing their party affiliation.
According to Rudy if, say, Hillary Clinton were to win election next year, she need simply change her party affiliation to Republican shortly before the inauguration and we will all be safe for the next four years.
One might, if one were feeling peckish, note our current placeholder on the high seat has an "R" for party affiliation, yet somehow failed to "anticipate or stop" the greatest terror attack ever on US soil. If one were feeling peckish. Which I'm not.
4) The Washington Post has an article this morning detailing the extent of private political briefings held in various government agencies after the mid-term elections. Although the author mentions "20 private briefings" in "at least 15 government agencies", a pair of paragraphs further down in the story make clear this has been common practice for the length of the Bush administration:
a. It's illegal to use the resources of these agencies (such as meeting space, office resources) to promote a specific political party.
b. It's illegal to "coerce" government employees to into acts which would favor some political party.
Given the details uncovered about one such briefing at the General Services Administration last January, it's at least arguable some, if not all, of these briefings violate the Act on both counts.
As a piece of unrelated trivia, there was an earlier Hatch Act of 1887 which set of land grants to states for the purpose of setting up experimental agriculture stations. As far as I know, the Bush-Cheney-Rove triumvirate hasn't managed to violate that one yet.
5) Some blog I clicked through today (and I'd like to credit it, but now I can't find it again) led me to this item, about a new design for solar panels.
As the story notes, the design isn't perfected yet -- apparently there are issues with overcoming the resistance within the cell. That part, I suspect, is just a case of engineering -- not easy, necessarily, but not likely to be innovative as well.
The hard part, the breath-taking part, is already done - the new panel design, using nano-towers in place of flat panels to trap the incoming solar energy. It's the exact same principle grass uses, or pine needles. Like many extremely clever ideas, it's really simple once you think about it. The hard part is thinking about it in the first place.
6) In the run-up to the Iraq invasion I was regularly frustrated with the apparent inability of the press to ask questions I was interested in getting answers to. For example, why were certain pieces of intelligence (such as those originate from Douglas Feith's group) given greater weight than other pieces, which on the surface seemed like they would be more reliable?
When I was in journalism school, it was hammered into my head repeatedly that you _never_ simply accepted what you were told by any government official, you _always_ assumed there was more to the story, and your job was to find out what that was. Otherwise, you might as well be working for TASS in the cold-war era.
Well, PBS aired "Buying the War" last night, a documentary by Bill Moyers which reviews the media oversight, or, more correctly, the lack thereof, in the run up to the Iraq invasion. I have not managed to watch it yet, although it's safely taped for viewing tonight or this weekend. If you missed it, it is also available online. By all accounts, it is a scathing, damning indictment of the failure of the press to live up to it's role as an adversary and inquisitor of our government.
That role is the sole reason the press has been granted special privileges under our Constitution. As a famous comic-book character often says, "with great power comes great responsibility". In the run up to the war, our press accepted the rights, and failed the responsibilities.
1) Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (R-Cubed) reports that the most recent gossip making the rounds has Rick Renzi resigning from the US House of Representatives by Friday. That would be tomorrow.
There was a great deal of discussion about potential issues Renzi had in the run-up to the election last November. Predictably, left-leaning blogs were all over it (admittedly, mostly with hopeful speculation in place of any actual hard information), while right-leaning one's tended to downplay it. For example, right-leaning Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit had the following about the affair on Oct. 24, 2006:
There is a weird conspiracy theory going around the lefty blogs. The theory is that Congressman Rick Renzi has been indicted but the US Attorney for Arizona is sitting on it so that Republicans don't lose the seat.
The Arizona Republic ran a story on Oct. 26 (unfortunately, now only available by paying for access to their archive) essentially dismissing the entire issue.
Well, time passes and we zoom ahead to last week's Wall Street Journal article about the matter, and the problems being hinted at last fall are given greater substantiation, to the extent that, within a week, the buzz is whether Renzi can survive the month, much less his full-term. It's embarrassing (or, at least, should be), particularly given how long the original hints have been out there, that it takes a news outlet from New York to break the story rather than one of our in-state papers or stations.
2) As an extra-special bonus related to item 1, the entire affair opens the door further to accusations that Paul Charlton, the US District Attorney who was overseeing the Renzi investigation before being asked to tender his resignation as part of the Gonzales affair, was asked to step down as a means of halting, or at least delaying until after the election, any possible indictment in the case.
Given the amount of time which has passed since the election, I find it doubtful the DA's office was on the verge of announcing an indictment last Oct. or Nov. However, given the timing Charlton's placement on the now-infamous "firing list" in Sept. 2006, it certainly seems increasingly likely the two events -- the Renzi investigation and Charlton's firing -- are closely related.
3) Leading Republican Presidential candidate said the following a couple days ago (via Poltitic0):
MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.
“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
Whether or not Giuliani is the best candidate remains open to question (particularly after making the above statement), but it's nice to know that _all_ that is needed to keep America safe from terrorism is a President with an "R" representing their party affiliation.
According to Rudy if, say, Hillary Clinton were to win election next year, she need simply change her party affiliation to Republican shortly before the inauguration and we will all be safe for the next four years.
One might, if one were feeling peckish, note our current placeholder on the high seat has an "R" for party affiliation, yet somehow failed to "anticipate or stop" the greatest terror attack ever on US soil. If one were feeling peckish. Which I'm not.
4) The Washington Post has an article this morning detailing the extent of private political briefings held in various government agencies after the mid-term elections. Although the author mentions "20 private briefings" in "at least 15 government agencies", a pair of paragraphs further down in the story make clear this has been common practice for the length of the Bush administration:
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that he was not familiar with the details of the briefings for other agencies, but that the projected fate of specific candidates was "certainly" discussed. He also said that in addition to the 20 briefings given in 2006-2007, "there were others throughout the last six years," making clear that this was a common Bush administration practice during each election cycle.Such briefings are potentially illegal in at least two different ways under the Hatch Act of 1939:
Stanzel said that Rove "occasionally spoke to political appointees at departments and agencies" but that his presentations were more "off the cuff" and were meant to convey "their importance to advancing the president's agenda."
a. It's illegal to use the resources of these agencies (such as meeting space, office resources) to promote a specific political party.
b. It's illegal to "coerce" government employees to into acts which would favor some political party.
Given the details uncovered about one such briefing at the General Services Administration last January, it's at least arguable some, if not all, of these briefings violate the Act on both counts.
As a piece of unrelated trivia, there was an earlier Hatch Act of 1887 which set of land grants to states for the purpose of setting up experimental agriculture stations. As far as I know, the Bush-Cheney-Rove triumvirate hasn't managed to violate that one yet.
5) Some blog I clicked through today (and I'd like to credit it, but now I can't find it again) led me to this item, about a new design for solar panels.
As the story notes, the design isn't perfected yet -- apparently there are issues with overcoming the resistance within the cell. That part, I suspect, is just a case of engineering -- not easy, necessarily, but not likely to be innovative as well.
The hard part, the breath-taking part, is already done - the new panel design, using nano-towers in place of flat panels to trap the incoming solar energy. It's the exact same principle grass uses, or pine needles. Like many extremely clever ideas, it's really simple once you think about it. The hard part is thinking about it in the first place.
6) In the run-up to the Iraq invasion I was regularly frustrated with the apparent inability of the press to ask questions I was interested in getting answers to. For example, why were certain pieces of intelligence (such as those originate from Douglas Feith's group) given greater weight than other pieces, which on the surface seemed like they would be more reliable?
When I was in journalism school, it was hammered into my head repeatedly that you _never_ simply accepted what you were told by any government official, you _always_ assumed there was more to the story, and your job was to find out what that was. Otherwise, you might as well be working for TASS in the cold-war era.
Well, PBS aired "Buying the War" last night, a documentary by Bill Moyers which reviews the media oversight, or, more correctly, the lack thereof, in the run up to the Iraq invasion. I have not managed to watch it yet, although it's safely taped for viewing tonight or this weekend. If you missed it, it is also available online. By all accounts, it is a scathing, damning indictment of the failure of the press to live up to it's role as an adversary and inquisitor of our government.
That role is the sole reason the press has been granted special privileges under our Constitution. As a famous comic-book character often says, "with great power comes great responsibility". In the run up to the war, our press accepted the rights, and failed the responsibilities.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
There's one place like home
This NY Times this morning has an article about the discovery of a potential earth-like planet 20 light years away. This is big news.
As the article makes clear, it's far, far too early to know if it actually _is_ earth-like. For one thing, it's five times more massive than earth. However, it has some of the primary preconditions -- it orbits within the "habitable zone" where surface water can exist, it belongs to a planetary system where larger planets orbit further out, to help sweep up debris such as comets and asteroids to help avoid regular impacts.
I know there is a lot of discussion about "wasting" money on our space program, and it's entirely possible our allocation of resources for space exploration isn't ideal (for example, maybe we should be putting a little more right now toward discovery and tracking of objects like this). However, it's unquestionably true, if our civilization somehow manages to survive, that we will eventually be forced to leave this planet in search of other resources. There is only so much here to be used, and no matter how efficiently we manage to recycle more will someday be needed.
The obvious first steps would include a moon base (where frozen water may be available near the poles) and Mars. A step beyond that would be the asteroids, which could be mined for their mineral content.
Sooner or later though, possibly millennia from now, there will be a need to expand even further. It's almost instinctual.
The significance of this discovery is not the planet itself. In all likelihood it will turn out to be barren -- it's too large, the atmosphere too dense, the atmosphere not dense enough ... something will be wrong and water will not exist.
However, this is just one planet. The first extra-solar planet discovery only happened in 1991. For planets around a sun-like star it was 1995, just over a decade ago. These planets were massive, Jupiter-sized or larger. It's only within the last couple years we've been able to detect planets approaching the size of earth. The fact we found one so quickly, and so close, suggests the first three terms of the Drake equation possess quite high values, and other potential bundles of desirable landscape may be quite common.
I would love a place with an ocean view.
As the article makes clear, it's far, far too early to know if it actually _is_ earth-like. For one thing, it's five times more massive than earth. However, it has some of the primary preconditions -- it orbits within the "habitable zone" where surface water can exist, it belongs to a planetary system where larger planets orbit further out, to help sweep up debris such as comets and asteroids to help avoid regular impacts.
I know there is a lot of discussion about "wasting" money on our space program, and it's entirely possible our allocation of resources for space exploration isn't ideal (for example, maybe we should be putting a little more right now toward discovery and tracking of objects like this). However, it's unquestionably true, if our civilization somehow manages to survive, that we will eventually be forced to leave this planet in search of other resources. There is only so much here to be used, and no matter how efficiently we manage to recycle more will someday be needed.
The obvious first steps would include a moon base (where frozen water may be available near the poles) and Mars. A step beyond that would be the asteroids, which could be mined for their mineral content.
Sooner or later though, possibly millennia from now, there will be a need to expand even further. It's almost instinctual.
The significance of this discovery is not the planet itself. In all likelihood it will turn out to be barren -- it's too large, the atmosphere too dense, the atmosphere not dense enough ... something will be wrong and water will not exist.
However, this is just one planet. The first extra-solar planet discovery only happened in 1991. For planets around a sun-like star it was 1995, just over a decade ago. These planets were massive, Jupiter-sized or larger. It's only within the last couple years we've been able to detect planets approaching the size of earth. The fact we found one so quickly, and so close, suggests the first three terms of the Drake equation possess quite high values, and other potential bundles of desirable landscape may be quite common.
I would love a place with an ocean view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)