I have trouble believing this, but animal rights extremists have apparently stolen a kindergarten bunny.
Students at the Community Building Children’s Center arrived at their downtown preschool Monday morning to discover that their pet rabbit Sugar Bunny had been kidnapped over the weekend. Teachers found anti-circus flyers in his hutch.
“Somebody stoled him,” said five-year-old Zion. “I’m sad.”
Chris Mooney has been nice enough to help promote our effort, and points us to some more helpful information about the Office of Technology Assessment. Now would be a good time to go over what the OTA did, how it was set up, and why I think it would be rather easy to set it up again as a non-partisan scientific body. To help people understand why this office was important, let’s go through a history of the body, much of which I’ve culled from Bruce Bimber’s “The Politics of Expertise in Congress”.
Founding and Mission of the OTA
The OTA was founded in 1972 to counter more political bodies of expertise, like the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) which explicitly serve to advance the executive’s policy goals and lack objectivity or rather political neutrality. While in its early years it was not politically pure, it was remarkable among Congressional agencies in that it became less politicized over time. From Bimber:
Even the most naive observer of politics expects advisors to presidents, senators, and agency heads to be “biased” in favor of their bosses. But the simplicity of this theory is also its downfall–it merely predicts that degree of politicization increases with time, and cannot speak to cases where expert organizations might grow less politicized over time, or where agencies might exhibit different degrees of politicization. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), created explicitly as an analogue to PSAC for Congress, was highly politicized in its first half-dozen years of operation. It was widely viewed as dedicated to a narrow set of political interests, and its technical credibility suffered as a result. But OTA evolved over time to be less politicized; it became less partisan, less parochial, and more credible as a neutral provider of expertise. The agency exhibited an unmistakable trend from high toward lower politicization. (p20)
The Technology Assessment Act of 1972 initially defined a more limited role for the agency. It “assigned the agency a mission of providing neutral, competent assessments about the probable beneficial and harmful effects of new technologies.” (Bimber p26) The goal of the agency was to help craft policy to mitigate the negative effects of new technology while maximizing benefit from new science and knowledge.
The governing structure of the OTA was unique for a Congressional office. It was designed to minimize partisan input, and restrict the OTA from developing its own policy goals.
They’re fighting for our freedoms. And in order to fight for our freedoms, thousands of miles away from home, thousands of miles from their sweethearts and husbands/wives, they must be kept pure and without sin. Therefore, Christian groups demand the military not allow PX stores to sell porn (aka Playboy).
A Christian advocacy group is encouraging military families, and other concerned citizens, to write letters to the Defense Department expressing concern over the recent decision by the Pentagon that allows the sale of certain adult magazines at military exchanges.
…
Trueman says the Alliance Defense Fund is encouraging citizens to get involved in this fight over this pornography policy. “What we’re going to do is try to get more and more complaints into the military about this policy. Because in justifying this policy by the military what they’ve said [is] they’ve had few complaints from families about the sale of pornography in the military,” he says.Trueman says sexual harassment and other problems in the military are exacerbated by pornography. He says this new policy, of deeming magazines like Penthouse and Playboy as not sexually explicit, counters common sense.
Gambling on military bases is ok though, because what could they do better with their hard-earned cash? Surely, not send it home to family or save it, instead it’s best if casinos on bases ensure their paychecks end up right back in military coffers. It’s the best possible situation, because then they have less to spend on porn.
So support these heroic family values groups and their all-important crusade to keep our fighting men and women in Iraq, adults all, free from access to magazines that might show nudity. They must remain chaste over there, so that we can freely abuse ourselves over here.
I am always amused by this statement at the bottom of the Evolution News and Views website. It says:
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution. Click here to read more.
That being said, Casey Luskin shows just how accurate and unbiased his little news service can be, as he castigates the French for being scientifically illiterate. His evidence? A game show audience flubbed on heliocentrism.
Earlier this summer, Mike Gene posted on Telic Thoughts a YouTube video where a contestant on a French version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” was asked a question where he had to decide whether it was the Sun, or the Moon that revolved around the Earth. The contestant (see below) wasn’t sure, so he polled the audience for the right answer. After the poll, 56% of the French audience thought the Geocentric model of the Solar System was correct, i.e. they thought the sun revolved around the earth, rather than visa versa. After much deliberation, this French contestant went with the majority vote and decided that the Sun revolves around the earth. What does this say about scientific literacy in France? Bear in mind that Eugenie Scott’s survey in Science found that in France, “80% or more of adults accepted the concept of evolution.” Her supplementary data also boasted that French adults were among “the least likely to believe in divine control and to pray frequently.” If those numbers are true, this video suggests that accepting evolution and rejecting religion does not necessarily mean you are scientifically literate. The funny YouTube video is below:
I shudder to think how much worse we Americans would look if we were evaluated based on the intelligence of our game show audiences. But there you have it. Luskin bases his analysis of scientific literacy of foreign populations not from specific studies testing scientific knowledge, literacy and competence across populations but from French “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.”
Heckuva job there Casey. Keep it up, you’re making my job easy.
DeSmogBlog has the details. Apparently, “cut-and-paste” Schulte didn’t have anything new to say, not even enough for a journal like Energy and Environment to take it. Although, Richard Littlemore’s letter discussing his loose use of other researchers contributions might have helped.
Here is the email that I sent to Boehmer-Christiansen”
…
Dr. Schulte’s analysis has engendered both enthusiasm and controversy, but at least one arm’s length “reviewer,” Dr. Tim Lambert, has noted that Dr.Schulte’s draft draws heavily from a document that it does not credit, an earlier letter on this topic by Dr. Benny Peiser. In fact, the overlapping content in these two documents is so considerable as to support a charge of plagiarism.
This, of course, must be awkward for your publication. Although you have not published Dr. Schulte’s work, you have been “credited” with the intention of doing so and are now being discredited on the basis of a work that has clearly not received Energy and Environment’s stamp of approval.
In the circumstances, however, I would request that you clarify whether you are considering Dr. Schulte’s survey for publication and, if so, that you make available for independent review an actual copy of the draft currently under consideration.
Sincerely, etc.,And this is Bochmer-Christiansen’s response:
For your information, I have informed Dr.Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/’Angst’.
His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new, as you point out. it was not what was of interest to me; nothing has been published.
Sincerely
Sonja B-C
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
“Nothing new” indeed. That’s the nice way of putting it. So good job Tim and others for detecting the BS and shutting down yet another repetitive and debunked crank paper.
And for a humorous take on the situation see Nexus6 on the fiasco (H/T Tim).
It looks like it will be two announcements of new sciblings today. We have A Few Things Ill Considered joining us at Scienceblogs. It’s a climate science/debunking blog I’ve been familiar with for a while, and author of the excellent Howto talk to a climate skeptic.
Welcome!
Welcome Sciencewoman to the block, as she starts up her new blog here. I’m continually impressed with our Sb overlords and their ability to acquire a diverse set of talented individuals. It seems they’re doing a better job the The Scientist as some of my sciblings have pointed out.
For anyone curious about complexity, genome size, and non-coding or “junk” DNA, there are a number of good posts on the topic at Genomicron.
See in particular Junk DNA: let me say it one more time fand Function, non-function, some function: a brief history of junk DNA for a discussion of what junk DNA is, what it means for biology, and why creationists that have made hay out of it are purposefully misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.
And What’s wrong with this figure? for a discussion on a common mistake in assuming that genome size automatically means increasingly complex organisms.
Good stuff, should be required reading, and nice examples of corrections of popular misconceptions about biology.
This time it’s Steve McIntyre representing for the anti-global warming cranks following the HIV/AIDS denialist lead and using John Ioannidis’ study to suggest science is bunk. Never mind that this research is primarily focused on medical studies. Never mind that the study wouldn’t even exist if replication in science didn’t identify in the first place. Cranks like to latch onto anything that they think is embarrassing to science out of the mistaken belief that it makes their nonsense more believable.
It’s funny, I was sure they would have picked up on this stuff years ago, but the critical event was clearly the publication of his findings in the Wall Street Journal (clearly the go-to paper for cranks). However, despite not appearing in the editorial page, it’s still a pretty poor analysis I’m sorry to say. The point of this research isn’t to say that medical research is bunk, or sloppy, the point is to understand that an over-reliance on statistical significance and emphasis on positive results will inevitably result in false-positives entering the literature, through no fault of the authors or the editors.
For an excellent analysis that is easy to understand, check out Alex Tabarrok’s discussion of the research. His analysis also benefits from actually discussing what Ioannidis’ research means for medical science, and how it can reform to diminish these effects.
What can be done about these problems? (Some cribbed straight from Ioannidis and some my own suggestions.)
1) In evaluating any study try to take into account the amount of background noise. That is, remember that the more hypotheses which are tested and the less selection which goes into choosing hypotheses the more likely it is that you are looking at noise.
2) Bigger samples are better. (But note that even big samples won’t help to solve the problems of observational studies which is a whole other problem).
3) Small effects are to be distrusted.
4) Multiple sources and types of evidence are desirable.
5) Evaluate literatures not individual papers.
6) Trust empirical papers which test other people’s theories more than empirical papers which test the author’s theory.
7) As an editor or referee, don’t reject papers that fail to reject the null.
Steven Novella also addresses this research and Tabarrok’s analysis and emphasizes the importance of prior probability in determining whether a study is reliable (Tabarrok’s #1). Simply put, hypotheses shouldn’t be tested simply because they can be thought of at random. There should first be some biological plausibility for the effect. This becomes hysterical when Novella expands his analysis to address what the research says about complementary and alternative medicine studies.
But there are other factors at work as well. Tabbarok points out that the more we can rule out false hypotheses by considering prior probability the more we can limit false positive studies. In medicine, this is difficult. The human machine is complex and it is very difficult to determine on theoretical grounds alone what the net clinical effect is likely to be of any intervention. This leads to the need to test a very high percentage of false hypotheses.
What struck be about Tabbarok’s analysis (which he did not point out directly himself) is that removing the consideration of prior probability will make the problem of false positive studies much worse. This is exactly what so-called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) tries to do. Often the prior probability of CAM modalities – like homeopathy or therapeutic touch – is essentially zero.
If we extend Tabbarok’s analysis to CAM it becomes obvious that he is describing exactly what we see in the CAM literature – namely a lot of noise with many false-positive results.
Tabbarok also pointed out that the more different researchers there are studying a particular question the more likely it is that someone will find positive results – which can then be cherry picked by supporters. This too is an excellent description of the CAM world.
The implications of Ioannidis’ research, therefore, is not to undermine or abandon scientific medicine, but rather to demonstrate the important of re-introducing prior probability in our evaluation of the medical literature and in deciding what to research. As much as I am in favor of the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement, it does not consider prior probability. I have said before that this is a grave mistake, and the work of Ioannidis provides statistical support for this. One of the best ways to minimize false positives is to carefully consider the plausibility of the intervention being studied. CAM proponents are deathly afraid of such consideration for they live in the world of infinitesimal probability.
Considering scientific plausibility would also kill, in a single stroke, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) – which is ostensibly dedicated to researching medical treatments that have little or know scientific plausibility.
The irony is that cranks have started to cite this article in some snide attempt to disparage science as a whole, but in reality this research is mostly about why you shouldn’t trust crank methods. Instead of cherry-picking results the emphasis should be on literatures. Instead of testing modalities with no biological plausibility and publishing the inevitable 5% of studies showing a false-positive effect, one should have good theory going in for why an effect should occur. Finally, Ioannidis’ study would not exist if it weren’t for the fact that the literature is ultimately self-correcting, and the false-positive effects that inevitably make it in ultimately are identified.
Second Innocence has gone and shown me up on my own issue. They’ve started a petition to reinstate the OTA.
Please, show your support.