On Research&#8230;

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Of ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties . . .

Posted on January 31st, 2012 by earleholland

Is it ever acceptable to deceive children as a strategy for teaching them?

For most folks, the quick answer is a resounding philosophical “no!” Regardless of the fact that sometimes deception can teach a powerful lesson, the idea of deluding impressionable children with falsehoods is usually considered out-of-bounds. We simply don’t like “lying” to our kids.

But what about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy . . . ?

In those cases, we rationalize the fib, justifying it by explanations that it teaches children the joy of giving, of love for another, and other value-laden premises. But does that really make it alright, the end justifying the means?

The question arose over the last week as discussion grew on a listserv for science writers. It began with a writer looking for insight on writing about science for middle-school children, as well as useful websites that seemed to be successful with kids that age.

One respondent pointed to websites linked to cryptozoology, the supposed study of animals not proven to exist, creatures such as the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch or the Chupacabra of legend. The idea was that kids’ fascination with such mythical beasts would fuel their curiosity and drive them to learn.

Others disagreed, sometimes vehemently. Their argument: Don’t use “pseudoscience” to teach science!

At issue was the sorry state of science education and how it might be improved. At the heart of the dialogue was the general agreement that understanding science required the ability to gauge the validity of information and extrapolate meaning.

Those in the camp defending the value of “studying” cryptids pointed to a well-known internet website touting the existence of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, and cited how it had been used in classrooms as a lesson for students in evaluating data, since the kids were enthralled by the idea of such a strange animal.

Over several days, the role that critical thinking played in understanding science emerged. When, many asked, should critical thinking be taught in school? Some argued that its place was in high school, that such evaluative skills were beyond the capability of the very young. Others countered that it is imperative to include it at the earliest ages so it becomes integral to the thinking process.

Those of us baby-boomers learned science the hard way, through rote memorization and lessons pontifically delivered from teachers and profs. In essence, that approach basically weeded out those whose personal interest in science couldn’t outweigh the tedium and boredom of lists.

Today’s kids have it so much better. Their teachers know, thanks to years of actual research, that kids learn best through inquiry, their own investigations. While their parents’ teachers took on the role (often inaccurately) as experts, today’s teachers function more as guides than authorities. And science classes are so much the better for it, as are the children who learn there.

So if inquiry is the key to success, then what’s wrong with using a premise that is false as a demonstration project to hone critical thinking skills? Many of the writers on the list saw no problem.

What’s wrong with using the Tree Octopus site, or any other pseudoscience approach — UFOs, intelligent design, ghosts, etc. – is that their existence is untestable. There is no way to experimentally determine whether they are true or false. We require such tests to label something as science.

Granted, deception is used by researchers all the time. Much psychological research could not be done without some use of deception to insure accurate responses. And there are federal guidelines laying out specifically what can and cannot be done in research using humans that involves deception. There are also additional restrictions on using children in such research.

So one could argue that kids are protected from harm in such cases.

But what’s missed in that argument is the impact made on children when they discover they’ve been misled. The faith and confidence they had in their teachers can be strained and a little bit of their trust is lost in the process.

Yes, critical thinking is essential in improving students’ – and the public’s – understanding of science. But how they attain that skill is equally important.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Science Communication, Science policy // Add Comment »

A cascade of lemmings . . .

Posted on October 7th, 2011 by earleholland

Facts and evidence can be strange things.

Regardless of what you see when you look up, the sky is not blue. We perceive it as blue because of the way the atmosphere filters the spectrum of light. So the evidence – our eyesight – suggests a blue sky, but it isn’t a fact.

In truth, facts and evidence are in a constant battle with faith and perception. Humans tend to be rational beings until what they’re told or see runs headlong into what they believe.

Those were the first thoughts that came to mind when hearing about the new proposed guidelines being recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force concerning prostate cancer screening. Simply put, the USPSTF suggests men stop getting a widely used cancer screening test.

Their logic: It doesn’t save lives and, in many cases, leads to unneeded treatments that can harm patients.

At issue is whether men should add the PSA test to other assays when offered by their physicians. The test measures the amount of prostate-specific antigen in the blood as an indicator of whether cancer is present in that male organ. A “normal” value would be less than four nanograms of the antigen in one millimeter of blood. Higher levels might signal a possible problem but that’s not an absolute fact.

What the USPSTF was saying was that a PSA test with a higher-than-normal finding is no guarantee that there is a problem that needs treating. Prostate cancer can be slow-growing and cause no substantive problem in many men. The New York Times reported that autopsies of men 40 to 60 years old showed that one-third had prostate cancer, and that three fourths of men aged 85 or more had the disease. So many men will die with the disease, but not because of it.

But prostate cancer can also be fast-growing and men with this form of the disease, and who have survived, claim that the PSA test offered an early alert to a condition that could have killed them. For these men, and the countless prostate cancer support organizations and many oncologists, the USPSTF’s recommendations are flat-out wrong. For these patients and their docs, the “facts” are that the patients are alive and were “saved,” to some extent, by the PSA test.

The wrinkle in all of this, however, is that prostate cancer treatments may leave men either impotent or incontinent, or both – two conditions that can be devastating to men who are middle-aged or older. Additionally, at least two large-scale clinical trials, in the US and in Europe, showed that there was little or no difference in the nine-to-10-year survival rate among men, based on whether they had a PSA test or not.

Clearly for men with the fast-growing form of prostate cancer, any early warning – such as the PSA test – is an advantage. But the USPSTF is saying that for those with the slow-growing form, the test could urge men to undergo treatment that could lessen their quality of life.

There’s a troubling aspect of déjà vu in all of this.

Two years ago, the USPSTF made another set of recommendations concerning mammograms for women. As Gary Schwitzer, a former professor at the University of Minnesota, explained in his highly respected HealthNewsReview Blog, media coverage of that previous task force recommendation was misreported as suggesting women in their 40s don’t need mammograms.

Schwitzer cited the report as actually saying, “The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.”

In other words, women under 50 should decide on whether to get mammograms after consultation with their doctors!

It’s highly likely that prostate cancer survivors, support organizations and some physicians and medical institutions will cry foul at the task force’s prostate cancer recommendations. After all, survivors – and their physicians – see their survival as real evidence. That they are alive is a fact.

Cynics will point to the business advantage of additional screening for practitioners and their institutions alike, and in our litigious society, the extra expense of an additional test does remove some of the insecurity that comes with practicing medicine.

As valid as both of those viewpoints are, that’s not the issue. The real question is more of how we make decisions, of what role evidence – and in some cases, actual facts – plays in weighing our choices. Humans, and Americans in particular, like simple answers. We like to turn to experts for their opinions, and we often see those opinions as facts.

But when facts and evidence run counter to what we believe – in this case, that any medical screening is a good thing – we too often adhere to our faith and run away like lemmings cascading off a cliff.

And the outcome is often the same.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy // 5 Comments »

Not what Ben meant . . .

Posted on September 6th, 2011 by earleholland

There are two ways of covering science news:

The first is the equivalent to covering a fire or other disaster – get as much information as possible and throw it out at the public as quick as possible. That emphasizes the true nature of news – that it is immediate – and that its lifespan is short.

The second method involves caution and more patience than most journalists can spare. It also involves gathering as much information as possible but then adds a layer of questioning asking if that info tells a complete enough story for the audience, or does it contain gaping holes making the story incomplete.

We see this tug-of-war occurring most often in science stories involving public policy and perhaps in no area more often than in coverage of the global climate change issue. And a case last week provides a perfect example.

Early last month, researchers from the University of Huntsville published a paper in the journal Remote Sensing that basically argued that current climate models had underestimated the ability of the upper atmosphere to release temperature into space. The researchers argued that satellite data disagreed with climate models arguing the rate of global atmospheric warming was increasing.

News outlets that tended to oppose the idea of human-caused warming quickly grabbed the research and touted it as evidence that current climate change warnings were wrong. Fox News, Forbes magazine, the Drudge Report and many others touted the story for all it was worth, even though the satellite data only covered the two-year period of 2000-2001.

Then last week, the journal’s editor publicly announced that he was resigning because the paper had been published. Falling on his sword, the editor, Wolfgang Wagner — noted climatologist in his own right – said that his journal’s peer review process had failed in this case and the paper should never have been approved since other research had earlier disproved the claims that the paper’s authors had made. He also chided the mass media for reporting that this single paper was evidence of the falsehood of climate change.

The resignation itself then became major news since the editor had other options available other than resignation. He could have waited and let the scientific community respond with follow-up papers disputing the arguments. He could have even retracted the paper. Instead, he argued that as editor, he was responsible for the flawed peer review and elected to step down.

This was misplaced nobility, suicide by ethics, and no real gain resulted.

The climate change skeptic community has jumped on individual papers like this before. In 2007, we reported on a study by Ohio State researcher David Bromwich that said both temperatures and precipitation over Antarctica didn’t rise as much as several current climate models had suggested.

The climate change skeptic community quickly embraced that report, alleging that it was a smoking gun showing that concern over climate change was a hoax. Before it died down, more than 140,000 people had looked at our report.

But what that community failed to do was acknowledge important parts of the report — that Bromwich had said that the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

“It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations,” he said.

“It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”

These caveats by Bromwich placed his work in proper perspective, but they were lost on the masses.

Once upon a time, the public could have a reasonable confidence in the reporting it received. The world of journalism had its own checks and balances to insure that most news could be trusted to be at the least, the best information available at the time.

And science reporting, usually far removed from any political issues, seemed even more reliable than the rest.

Those days appear long gone now with the massive loss in science journalists during the last decade, and the frantic intensification of interest among the public in news – any news! – as soon as possible.

Ben Bradlee, the former editor of the Washington Post, had an explanation for the mistakes that journalists occasionally made along the way. He simply defined news as “history caught on the run.”

But what we have now is not what he meant.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Climate change, Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy // 3 Comments »

Of science, baseball, and cricket . . .

Posted on August 4th, 2011 by earleholland

Most people laughed in 2005 when comedian Stephen Colbert coined the term “truthiness.” The idea was that there are some things we all know based on our “gut feelings,” that are guided by our instinct and that lack any linkage to logic, evidence or data. The term struck such a resounding chord that it’s now firmed entrenched in our vernacular.

Sadly though, the humor seems to have faded over time, leaving us with the frustrating conclusion that all too many members of the public run their lives based on the “truthiness” of what they hear, instead of facts.

In essence, belief has overwhelmed evidence, and that seems to be just fine with lots of folks.

That’s the only explanation I can come up with to explain the results of a new Rasmussen Reports poll of Americans that shows that two thirds of those surveyed believe that scientists have falsified their work to strengthen their claims about global climate change.

The poll, based on a survey of more than 1,000 people in July, revealed that “69 percent say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs,” according to Rasmussen. Of those surveyed, 40 percent believed that falsification was “very likely.”

Such survey results are, by any measure, disturbing but the hurt researchers feel on hearing them is amplified. In general, the rules of science are rigid and specific – conclusions are drawn based on a preponderance of evidence and data and are usually muted based on a healthy, critical skepticism. Scientists universally need strong facts to reach a finding.

“Beliefs,” per se, have little bearing in the process of science.

But they seem to be everything as far as today’s public is concerned.

Adding to researchers’ dismay is the obvious fact that the public apparently doesn’t understand science. More than almost every other human endeavor, science is self-correcting over time. False or flawed research results are usually corrected quickly as other scientists try to build on past discoveries. If findings have been fudged, it skews future work, and the malfeasance quickly becomes obvious.

That’s the way science works.

And the more controversial the science, and the greater the policy implications of the work, the faster science’s self-correcting mechanism come into play.

But beliefs are personal and tightly held. Most people will readily reveal their beliefs but fewer are ready to explain their reasoning. And when the beliefs are questioned, folks’ answers are rarely based on real evidence – they’re usually rooted in ‘truthiness.”

In public opinion polls like this latest Rasmussen survey, while questioners may ask for a person’s opinion or belief, but they rarely ask for the basis of that belief.

That’s just the way that polls work.

The danger in all of this is that beliefs are self-perpetuating. Humans inherently drift to others who share their thinking, and that behavior has been shown to be increasing in recent years. And with two-thirds of the American people lacking any reasonable measure of scientific literacy, it bodes ill for scientists and researchers locked into a system requiring facts.

It’s almost as if most Americans are watching a game on the field, and believe it is baseball.

Scientists, however, perceive it as cricket.__EH

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Climate change, Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy // 8 Comments »

The thugs are coming . . .

Posted on July 13th, 2011 by earleholland

People who lurk in the shadows, waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting and vulnerable, have a distinct name. We call them “thugs,” and they are universally scorned and abhorred as bullies and worse by most in modern society. Civilized folk despise these cretins and many will be aghast at the news:

The thugs are coming to campus.

Some months ago in this space, we told readers of a new campaign brought on by radical animal rights protestors in Florida that threatened to target undergraduate students in the biomedical sciences whose curriculum might include research involving animals.

The campaign, spurred by an activist website called Negotiation Is Over, urged its followers to attack.

Students, the website said, are “infinitely more susceptible to negative and inflammatory publicity,” and that “when education fails, smear campaigns can be highly effective. Abusers [meaning science students involved in animal research] have forfeited all rights to privacy and peace of mind.”

Led by activist Camille Marino in Florida, this proposed attack on students seeking an education, and possibly a career, in the sciences was broadly seen as stepping over the line. While activists have destroyed property, harassed scientists and businesses and proposed violence for years, targeting students in this way somehow seemed worse.

And many of us in the research community expressed concern but quickly assumed the “campaign” was just so much more inflammatory rhetoric.

We were wrong.

That website reported the other day that the campaign had begun on university campuses in Florida, New York and Michigan where students and parents showing up for summer orientation sessions and other welcoming events were met with leaflets offering rewards for the identities of incoming students in the sciences. The handouts read:

“Students, Earn Easy Money!!!

“Negotiation Is Over would like to pay you $100 cash for information about each biomed student who is learning to experiment on animals in your university.

“Provide us with the following, [and] you can quit your part time job:

Name of vivisection student

Picture of student

Address, phone and any other contact info

Pictures and/or summary of animal experiments in which student is involved.”

A phone number and email address was provided to request payment for such information. Photos on the website showed that that the handouts had been plastered throughout university buildings; apparently as “evidence” that the campaign’s “soldiers” were on the attack. (On the blog, Marino sent “special thanks to our comrades embedded in enemy camps.”)

Now university campuses, especially public ones, are havens for advocates and activists for all sorts of causes, and that’s as it should be. Educational institutions should be arenas for dissenting opinions and points of view. Most certainly are.

But as open as these parts of society are, there are limits on causes celebres and on what their proponents can do. And some animal rights activists, because of their violent actions and those of their peers, have lost their right to rebel, at least in the eyes of the majority of the public. Moreover, law enforcement has, in recent years, determined that some in the animal rights movement qualify as domestic terrorists and should be treated appropriately.

A recent Zogby poll showed that 53 percent of Americans support the use of animals in research while only 26 percent oppose it. Another 21 percent were “undecided.”

Some might see this new campaign is simply an escalation in grade-school bullying, or simply the latest tirade from another wacko group. But that would be wrong, as well as risky.

Americans have, from the very beginning, valued their personal right to choice in their lives above nearly all else. This new campaign specifically targets that right. Efforts aimed at intimidating students simply because of their choices of study, should be vigorously condemned and opposed, and those involved in such intimidation should be made to pay the price.__EH

An Update:

The first comment the blog posting above netted was from the chief activist behind this latest animal rights campaign, Camille Marino. She accused me of being “one of the blood-money soulless animal torture cheerleaders that sit on the board of AMP (Americans for Medical Progress, an organization supportive of humane use of animals in research).”

That fact, that I serve on the board of this non-profit, pro-research organization, has little to do with Marino’s call for the intimidation of students whose choice of majors may involve using animals in research. It in no way justifies her call to harass such students.

Marino’s vehemence and support of violence sets her apart from most other equally passionate animal rights advocates whose protests are respectful, rational and who refuse to incite illegal actions.

For that reason, we’ve rejected posting her comment, which ended with the poorly disguised threat that, “My associates will be seeing you very soon!” Assuming that this was an attempt at intimidation, she should know it didn’t work.__EH

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science policy // 11 Comments »

Who cares?

Posted on May 17th, 2011 by earleholland

Among those who do science (as well as those of us who cheer from the sidelines) the loss of public interest in recent years robs the soul.

Many scientists, fueled by a curiosity that blossomed in childhood about how the world works, are driven to understand, to know and decipher, and to unravel nature’s mysteries. And like most humans with passionate feelings, they feel the need to share what they’ve learned.

Sadly, it seems, few among the public care.

About the facts, that is . . . fewer people seem to care about the facts when forming their opinions on issues involving science and public policy. Through the last decade, we’ve seen this happen repeatedly where the rate at which science reveals new facts constantly increases while the intensity of disbelief among the public grows as well.

It’s almost as if there is an inverse relationship [science-speak] between new knowledge and support of it. Biological evolution, stem cell research, genetically modified organisms – all have seen this quandary, but nowhere more than with climate change.

Polls continue to show an ever-decreasing acceptance among the public that the climate is changing and that humans are playing a big role in that change, in spite of the fact that the evidence grows stronger and stronger by the week.

Two cases in point . . .

Earlier this month, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences released a report on the “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,” based on discussions from a two-day conference in April attended by some of the world’s leading climate scientists.

The report recommended specific actions: Reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide immediately; reducing soot, methane, ozone and other atmospheric pollutants by up to 50 percent, and beginning the hard challenges of adapting to the societal changes that the altered climate has caused, and will cause in the future.

In essence, the science advisory group for the Pope of the Catholic Church, with its more than 1 billion believers, said that climate change was real and we need to do something about it! And while the report’s findings got some news coverage, it paled in comparison to coverage of other topics like the latest on Charlie Sheen or the hacking into the Playstation network.

A few days later, America’s National Research Council, a study arm of the National Academy of Sciences, released its own report, “America’s Climate Choices,” which offered assessments and recommendations similar to those in the Vatican’s report. The NRC report echoed the call for immediate action to reduce climate change and adapt to what has happened already.

And yet this report also floundered in news coverage compared to reporting on the latest fad or celebrity.

All of this comes at a time when scientists are being admonished to “go public,” to reach out to the population and, in a sense, force-feed the latest science findings to people who seem oblivious and disinterested.

Why should they?

Most rational folk, when asked, agree with the general idea that science functions in support of humanity and society, that it is a worthwhile calling and one our culture should foster. But at the same time, all too many of those same folks will discount the new knowledge science offers when it conflicts with their own beliefs, or with their own vested interests.

They will stick their fingers in their ears and claim not to hear. And we can do little to change that.

Zealotry for science seems noble at first. But it’s hard to maintain in the face of those who don’t care.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Climate change, Environment, Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy // 10 Comments »

Of Toto, witches and whirlwinds . . .

Posted on April 28th, 2011 by earleholland

Tornadoes are the closest things to the supernatural most people will ever see.

Out of dark, ominous skies, a funnel forms, a massive vortex opens up, and suddenly the firmament of earth, rock and steel is snatched and thrown literally as dust in the wind.

The writhing, snakelike twister that initially terrified Dorothy, and us, in the movie The Wizard of Oz is almost comical compared to the real massive wall of destruction that tornadoes scrape across our world.

Hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis are so broad in their destruction that tornadoes might be seen as nuisances by comparison. But the sudden coming of a tornado, like the giant hand of an avenging god wiping clean the slates of our lives, is many times more terrifying.

Empirically, it’s hard to fathom that such force can come simply from the meeting of masses of cold and warm air. As they rush to displace each other, they assume the distinctive funnel-shape, like water pouring down a bathtub drain. Simple physics. Fluid displacement. Not hardly!

One look at the storms that cut a swath across a half-dozen Southern states this week is convincing that there is nothing simple involved here. And all the current models suggest that weather events in the future will become more extreme as the climate changes.

In my early career as a reporter, in the 1960’s, I covered the aftermath of many twisters, and saw others from distances that now I realize were not nearly safe enough. But we were young and adventurous then and rushed towards the fray more often than fleeing from it.

I had an ongoing contest with a reporter friend and colleague, Joe Aloia, who covered news for a local radio station. The game was who could arrive first? The winner gained street cred from the cops and firemen on the scene who back then would actually talk to reporters without the intercession of a departmental spokesman.

A twister was moving northeast through a Birmingham suburb and I raced along streets several blocks over but parallel to its path. Approaching a small shopping center covered with debris, in the parking lot was Joe’s news car, him standing beside it, shaken but unhurt. He’d won our contest that day but we both wondered about the wisdom of our “game.”

Some years later, I worked with a young graduate student in civil engineering whose thesis research involved calculating wind speeds in tornadoes. A small National Science Foundation grant funded his efforts at setting up a network to quickly report tornado touchdowns across Alabama. He would go to places recently hit and look for evidence – straws and sticks hurled into telephone poles, metal debris twisted in odd shapes, other detritus of the day.

He would take these samples back to the lab and try to duplicate and calculate the forces required to render such damage. Today, we understand much better the science of tornadoes but back then, nearly a half-century ago, our knowledge was limited. Our ability to give an early warning to people in harm’s way was scant at best.

After moving north to Ohio, but still in what’s called “Tornado Alley,” when skies would darken and green, I’d stand outside as the weather approached, searching the skies to the southwest for the telltale spikes in the clouds that sometimes are the first signs of twisters.

The exuberance of youth was gone, no excitement for the approaching storm.

Just the fear and respect of someone who’d seen the wrath that can come.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Climate change, Physics // 3 Comments »

Skating on . . .

Posted on April 7th, 2011 by earleholland

An early morning email from a member of our reactor staff rarely signals a serious problem but such communiqués should never be ignored. Last week’s message, however, was just plain weird. It contained:

“Screenwriter Greg Russo has sold an action pitch to Alloy Entertainment called Black Ice. Meanwhile, the scribe also has been hired to rewrite the script for the Platinum Dunes actioner Heatseekers at Paramount.

“Black Ice is an action-thriller about a group of highly trained thieves who break into a university’s research reactor during winter break to steal a cache of stockpiled uranium and the trio of college students who try to stop them. The contained drama is pitched as Disturbia meets Die Hard.”

The note had come from Andrew Kauffman, associate director of the nuclear reactor laboratory at Ohio State. He had forwarded it from a message pulled from a communications network linking RTRs – research and test reactors – around the country, most of which are at universities. Like laboratories in other scientific disciplines, the reactor lab on campus focuses on research, in this case requiring radioactive sources and instrumentation, and on training students from across the state.

What seemed almost comical in its absurdity was the actual proposed plot line the potential movie would use. But it is less humorous once you factor in the public’s susceptibility to false information, especially when that information involves science.

Take the initial idea, for example, that “a group of highly trained thieves who break into a university’s research reactor during winter break . . .” For most laboratories on the campuses of research institutions, security is a top priority. That’s especially true for some labs where biological agents may be studied, or facilities where radioactive materials are used. Strict federal and state security requirements are mandated for such places insuring that any unauthorized entry will trigger a rapid response from law enforcement.

Then there’s the part where the thieves planned “to steal a cache of stockpiled uranium” at the university reactor, as if extra nuclear fuel was just kept on hand in case it was needed. The assumption is, I guess, that the thieves were trying to steal uranium that could be used for some weapon of mass destruction. But beginning in the 1980s, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mandated that research reactors begin converting their fuel from highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU), specifically to eliminate the risks of such thefts. [Ohio State’s reactor was one of the first to complete that conversion.]

“Research and test reactors (RTRs) do not keep a “cache of stockpiled uranium,” Kauffman said flatly.

Lastly, there’s the idea that a “trio of college students . . . try to stop them [the thieves].” College students tend to be smarter than that — at least most of them, we hope. The idea of student-turned-vigilante just doesn’t make sense when a 911 call on an ever-present smartphone will probably fetch armed officers in a couple of minutes or less.

While one could conjure up a farcical slapstick comedy scene, a la “Home Alone,” with Macaulay Culkin thwarting incompetent burglars, that doesn’t seem to be what’s intended in this movie.

As best we know, and not surprisingly, none of the university RTRs have volunteered to serve as a location for the movie.

What’s sad about this whole episode is that science organizations have for years been trying to work with Hollywood writers and directors to not only bring more science into movies and television, but to make that science more accurate and believable. Organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have all committed to ongoing projects aimed at improving the way science is depicted via these media.

But still, we get films like “Black Ice.”

Granted, we’re talking about fiction here, and a degree of creative license is to be expected.

Admittedly, I know next to nothing about the movie industry, and I’m as much of a fan of techno-thrillers as the next guy, but really . . . Can’t we do better than this?__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Physics, Researchers, Science Communication // 2 Comments »

Target: Students . . .

Posted on March 29th, 2011 by earleholland

Research institutions that use animals in their studies know a simple truth:

Opponents to this work will use any and all means – including violence — to halt such science. Rather than seeing animal use in research as a current necessity to advance human and animal health, the animal rights community sees it as genocide, an equivalent to the Holocaust of World War II.

In recent years, activists have picketed researchers’ homes, vandalized and burned their cars, threatened spouses and children and even resorted to using bombs against these scientists. And as seriously criminal these acts are, there always seemed to be a line that wasn’t crossed even in their zealousness.

That boundary is no more.

This week, a well-known animal rights activist announced a new strategy. Opponents to animal use should now target university students, pressuring them to renounce their science studies and even perhaps their career plans, if animal use was involved.

“Students are far more malleable and easily manipulated,” she said, adding that they are “far more susceptible to applied persuasion tactics.”

The activist, Camille Marino, is widely known to be confrontational. Her website – Negotiation Is Over – makes no excuses for advising violence and destruction against any who support animal research.

In her latest diatribe, she argues that, “Every time a vivisector’s car or home – and eventually, the abuser him/herself – blows up, flames of liberation light up the night.” She suggests that researchers are ready targets with their “homes, adorned with windows that can be opened and doors with locks that can be picked.”

Subtlety is not part of Camille’s vocabulary.

Her latest screed was titled, “Bringing the War to the Student Body – The Soft-Bellied Target of the Vivisection Complex.” She, as do other counterparts, know the power of words. “Vivisection” and “torture” elicit strong negative emotions while “animal research” does not, especially when coupled with the mandated protections by law that govern such studies.

Her recipe for scaring students is blunt:

“Students also need to understand that making the wrong choice will result in a lifetime of grief . . . Students need to realize that any personal risk they are willing to assume will also be visited upon their parents, children, and nearest & dearest loved ones.”

She says students are “infinitely more susceptible to negative and inflammatory publicity,” that “when education fails, smear campaigns can be highly effective.” She adds, “Abusers [meaning science students involved in animal research] have forfeited all rights to privacy and peace of mind.”

This new campaign apparently is rooted in an interaction she had with an undergraduate science major a week or so earlier. Reading between the lines of the information Camille offered, it’s clear that the student originally had strong supportive beliefs in the use of animals in research, a commitment solid enough to set her sights on a research career at one of the nation’s premier research facilities.

But within 24 hours, she had reversed her opinion on the issue – a righteous victory, Camille argues.

But consider a comment the student wrote (provided by Camille’s post) that suggests something different: “Please stop saying such horrible, untrue things about me. It’s hurtful.”

Clearly she quickly became the target of a vehement hate campaign by activists, one harsh enough to drive her from research. Overwhelmed by it all, it appears she fled.

And who can blame her? Anyone who’s been a target of such attacks – and I have been, including one before by Camille – knows the vindictiveness and bile contained in such messages. Undergraduate students – or even graduate students – have scant experience facing such anger.

And that is specifically why Camille, and perhaps others, sees students as ready targets.

And that is why the idea of such a thing is so loathsome.

In recent years, universities have been moving away from a historic role of “in loco parentis,” where the institution served in lieu of parents far away. Students, as well as administrators, are more comfortable now with the notion that students are young adults.

But if Camille or others think that universities will stand idly by while animal rights activists abuse and harass their students, they are sorely mistaken. The fact that institutions have been reserved on this issue in the past isn’t evidence that they will allow acts against students.

Camille’s miscalculation may well awaken sleeping giants.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page