Science…well sort of...connecting the dots with measles

Boy this measles thing has really got my heart pumping again. In fact, it’s making me downright optimistic about our future.  Unlike the usual sciency news story, this one is clearly more than just a standard meme, a weeklong sensation soon to be washed over by the next big thing or faux crisis.  This one is different, and for some important reasons that have the potential to have a much broader impact...  but maybe not in the way you’d think.

To start, it has, for the first time really focused the ire of both the general public and politicians of all stripes on the ridiculousness of an anti-science positon, in this case the anti-vax nonsense. For both left and right, mainstream and lamestream, the outcry has been consistent...for God’s sake immunize your kids.  And I can point to the precise locus of the focus (…see what I did there?)  Mickey Mouse…Oh hell yes, you can mess with Darwin, our climate and the fluoride in our water but DO NOT mess with the Magic Kingdom.  Riffing aside, we know that facts and data do not drive our beliefs regarding science, and that in practice we rely on a complex set of emotionally driven biases and responses to arrive at our beliefs.  This is the perfect example.  By having Disneyland at the center of the outbreak, it shifts the issue from just another science story to one that threatens one of the core symbols of our national identity.  How could anyone allow the happiest place on earth to be under attack, and just stand by and watch.  No, this requires action!  I guarantee you, if the measles outbreak had occurred in South Texas, it would have been just another one day wonder.  But by associating the symbol of Disneyland to the fear response triggered by the yucky pictures of kids with measles, we have a winner.  So step one, it has won our emotional attention, and seems to be holding it.

Step two is that it has highlighted the underlying principle behind vaccination.  The point is not so much about protecting your child as it is about protecting all of society through the so called herd immunity.  It stands on the basic principle that we all need to take small reasonable actions for the greater good; that our individual beliefs, though perhaps deeply held, are trumped by the needs of civil society.  So if that principle is accepted here, as it has been nearly universally these last few weeks, is it really that far of a leap to set aside our ideologically driven beliefs on climate change to accept the science, and take the necessary, and sometimes compromising steps to address it for the benefit of us all.  I think not, and that’s why this recent outbreak has given me hope.

But to get to the point of connecting the dots between measles and climate, there are a few more bridges to cross.  I’ve often posed the question, “What beliefs that you hold dear are you willing to change in order to get others to change theirs?”  By asking folks to examine their own beliefs that are typically closely associated with certain ideologies or world views (GMO’s, fracking, homeopathy, nuclear energy, psychic healing, EMF radiation, unicorns), I’m challenging them to confront the fact that we all hold on to certain nonsense.  That’s why I find it heartening when I see politicians willing to stand up to small factions in their own parties and support the science rather than the fear.  But what I think we also need to do for this to really kick in, is for us all to take on own shibboleths, and discard them for the barriers to greater progress that they are.  Just as we cannot justify a world that allows individuals to make belief-based personal decisions that harm the public good, as in the case of measles vaccination, so should we also not countenance one that supports belief in other baseless gobbledygook.  We need to have the same courage to call it out when we see it, as both John Boehner and Barack Obama did regarding the measles.  By doing so I think we will create more space for those with beliefs contrary to our own, to confront theirs in the same manner.

That’s why this measles outbreak gives me hope…so, what do you believe?

Science, Well sort of…fracking redux

I've been really agonizing over this one.  In fact a draft of this piece in various forms has been on my computer for several months, as I seem unable or unwilling to finish it.  For background, it’s been about a year since I completed my series on fracking (for the truly nerdy and bored, see 6 most recent posts here) where I came to the conclusion that, on balance, the result of fracking and the increased use of natural gas would be a net positive as it relates to climate change by leading to reduced GHG emissions.  I admitted that I came to the conclusion by filtering the evidence available through my own set of biases, no matter how hard I tried to not do so. I also noted that this conclusion was of course subject to change on the basis of new evidence.  Over this time new evidence has indeed come forward, as ever more studies are completed.   Several are around the issue of methane release and so called life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (here, here and here.) Others take a more holistic look at the issue (here).  But I double dare you to read them and interpret the conclusions as anything other than providing data the can be used to support either side of the fracking debate….and of course, they all finish with “more research is needed”.  So the evidence has not swayed me.

Beyond pure data, climate activists continue to make a full throated case that fracking is bad for a variety of interrelated reasons, such as in this Mother Jones article. But their case is one muddled by ideology and is not made on the basis of the science.

So while neither the new evidence, nor the thrum of anti-fracking activism, has persuaded me to change my conclusion,  I have to admit that I have indeed changed my view. BAM, there, I said it.

What I am forced to admit  is that I made a fundamental error in my previous approach to this issue, and one that we can all fall prey to when dealing with inherently complex issues...I asked the wrong question.  I posed “Is fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?” By narrowly and carefully framing my question in this manner, I created a construct that would easily allow for a “yes” answer, but at the same time I lost sight of the bigger implications of both the question and the answer.

First I erred by relying on the underlying assumption that we actually have the time to take advantage of a so-called bridge or ramp energy source such as natural gas, and still achieve “sustainable outcomes”…translation, hold global warming to a manageable level.  Sadly, nearly all the trends in the data suggest that we simply do not have that time. (Here)

Another factor that has altered my thinking is a change in my belief that we need such a bridge fuel in the first place.  This was predicated on the assumption that renewable or zero carbon sources could not be scaled at a sufficient pace to meet real world demands.  Again, it looks like I was wrong, and the evidence comes from none other than my fatherland, Germany.  My wacky relatives got me all exercised  when they announced that they were phasing out their nuclear program in a transition to solar and wind.  I felt certain this was wrongheaded, knee jerk anti-nuclear nihilism that would only result in more reliance on coal.  Well son of a gun, wrong again.  It looks like Germany is indeed on track to transition to renewables such and wind and solar. (Here)

Finally, I think the biggest factor in my re-evaluation springs from the simple observation made by my friend Dan Miller when he says “ you can’t reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere”, through the use of natural gas.

So based on all of the above, I withdraw my original conclusion, but with a caveat. I don’t think it will be constructive to be “anti-fracking” any more than I think it is useful to be “anti-nuclear”. Where I think we all need to put all of our energies is to be “pro-zero carbon.”  Let’s focus on being for something rather than against something.  It tends to work out better that way.

So, what do you believe?

Science, well sort of… what happens when you take a break from blogging

Writing this blog over the last three years has yielded many unexpected pleasures.  At the top of the list is the fact that some folks actually read it…stunning.  This was brought home to me recently when at least three of you seemed to notice that I hadn’t written one in several months.  A few disconnected reasons that don’t warrant explanation contrived to make it so.  But, hey, I’m back.

The time off has given me the opportunity to reflect on both the process and purpose of this effort.  My original purpose was to change the world, or at least how we see it. I’m letting go of that one, for the most part.  I think my greatest insight on change is that it simply takes exponentially more time than we would like or that is nominally required for desired outcomes.   We can rail against this, and are unlikely to change it, but that doesn’t mean we give up all together, hence back to the blog.

I’m actually pretty satisfied with the process.  The best part is when you weigh in and challenge my half-baked conclusions…Makes us all better.  I thought I’d take the opportunity of this reboot to briefly revisit some previous topics and outline a few things I’ve been thinking about, just to get back into the groove.

Fracking…gotta love it
Not going to re-litigate this one…the series is found (here).  But there has been some interesting new research that is noteworthy, largely in that it aligns with my biases.  This one from Stanford http://tiny.cc/vb5tex  and this NY Times article tend to support my general conclusion that on balance, fracking and the production of natural gas, will be of benefit in fighting climate change.  As I’ve said repeatedly, this is vexingly complex, but to date I have yet to see any serious research to change my view in the way I have framed it.

Why I’m glad Bill Nye debated “He who shall not be named”
Bill took a lot of grief from certain pious corners for debating the creationist Ken Hamm (whoops, named him).  The criticism was that doing so somehow either legitimized or gave attention to a point of view that deserved neither.  I get the argument, but simply disagree with it.  The debate itself was OK, but did little other than to lay out the science on one hand, and on the other, the tortuous convulsions sophisticated creationists put themselves through to appear sciencey.  But the real payoff was at the end, when the moderator asked Bill and Hamm if there was anything that would get them to change their views.  Hamm said no, Bill said, sure, evidence. Bam! The whole 155 year debate since Darwin boiled down to that one short interchange, which made it worth it.

A really interesting media trend
I’ve written often on the role of the media in shaping how and what we believe (here).  And while I argue they are a too easy target for our disdain, there is an emerging trend that I find quite hopeful.  I’m not sure if it even has an official name or meme yet, so we’ll just call it “Data Driven Stuff”.  In just the last few weeks Nate Silver’s (FiveThirtyEight), Ezra Klein’s (Vox), NYT’s (The Upshot) joined the Atlantic’s (Quartz) as examples of this trend. WARNING…if you are anything like me you will spend way too much time on these sites. Lots of wonky stuff covering everything from sports to politics and yes, even science.  What they seek to do is use data and statistics as the basis for their articles and arguments.  Smart stuff, but for me the really interesting part is the comment sections.  They are for the most part from equally smart people finding one fault or another with the data analysis.  It might be the size of the study group, the methodologies employed, sampling errors etc. The delicious irony is that they highlight the dirty little secret about “data”…while it can be instructive, it is rarely if ever determinative, and therefore not all that useful in other than a very narrow set of circumstances…more on this at another time.

I’m goofing around with a scientific formula
Those of you who know me well recognize this could get dicey.  This formula thing came to me almost in full form one day while taking a hike with the dog.  It goes as follows:  Proximity to Y, where Y= the scientific question, amplifies Z, where Z = the complexity of the answer to the scientific question, by a factor of G, where G= the number of people who care about the answer.  So the basic idea is that the closer you are to the question, likely because you have some expertise, the more complex the answer.  And the complexity of that answer is then amplified by the number of people who care about or are impacted by the answer.  Still working this one out…if I get my brain around it there may be more to come…so, what do you believe?

Science well sort of….Eureka, I’ve figured it all out

I have to start by thanking you all for your patience.  Since I began this blog a couple of years ago I have been trying to answer what I thought was a straight forward question:  How do we decide what to believe? Those of you who stuck with me watched me muddle through various theories and explorations in earlier blog posts, my core idea all along being that if I could somehow show how I came to my beliefs, it might impact the way other people  arrive at theirs. …Well, I was wrong… very, very wrong.  But the good news, at least  as it relates to me and my fragile little ego,  is that this is not all on me as an ineffectual  blogger, but rather it’s simply a function of how we are wired…of how our brains work.

We think of ourselves as rational actors, using judgment, education and reason to come to our conclusions. But as I learned, this is really not the case.  My good friend Anthony Pratkanis calls us “cognitive misers” meaning that we are cheap in our use of rational reasoning.  I think what he’s pointing to is what Daniel Kahneman has brilliantly summarized in his seminal work “Thinking Fast and Slow”.  Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work explaining how individuals evaluate risk and make decisions often contrary to the evidence and their self-interest.  Complex sciency stuff, but as a psychologist it led him to further explorations on the very question of how our brain works in determining our beliefs.

In his book (and check out the SALT talk here) he makes a compelling argument for how our brain functions determine these outcomes.  He describes two methods of thinking, system one and system two. His best example of the difference  is system one is what kicks in when we are asked, what is 2+2?  The answer comes to us almost instantly and without struggle.  But when we are asked what is 17 x 28 system two has to come into operation  We pause, our pupils dilate (literally) and we have to expend mental energy to come up with the answer.  It is much slower and it takes work.

System one is where our brain is working almost on auto pilot, navigating us though the day without conscious effort.  It’s largely intuitive and enables us to assimilate vast amounts of inputs and stimuli in a way that we can process to our benefit.  It instantly categorizes and associates data into frames that we are comfortable with.  It is heavily influenced by our previous experience, associations, biases and ideologies, even if we are unaware of it.  System two is where we slow down and do the hard work of reasoning. We use it to check and validate our system one conclusions.  It takes effort, and we do it relatively rarely, regardless of the fact that we perceive ourselves to be using it much of the time.

And this is not a bad thing…we rely on system one to be effective, to survive, and to process the fire hose of visual, aural, and olfactory stuff that is coming at us non-stop…and generally it works really, really well.  If we tried to apply the slower system two to all these inputs, we’d simply be unable to function.

But wait…if we can understand all this, can’t we simply apply system two analysis to the more complex problems - like how we come to our beliefs -  taking the time to question our assumptions and regularly checking our initial system one conclusions?

Well no  - at least not often, if at all.  In fact it appears the opposite is the case, and that the more aptitude we have for scientific reasoning, (for system two), the more likely we are  to be swayed by system one processes and biases…. and I think it’s been proven, using….science.

Yale Law professor Dan Kahan is in my estimation a genius.  His latest research is the best designed yet to demonstrate the fallacy that if we just had more information, and were more skilled in our reasoning, we would rationally come up with the correct objective answer.

While not at all complicated, I won’t be able to do justice to his work and fully describe his methodology in the space I allow myself here.   But trust me, his results show in a very compelling fashion that contrary to what one might expect,  the more sophisticated a person is, the more likely they are to misinterpret scientific data based on their political ideology.  And the more information they are given, the harder they hold on to their beliefs.  It should come as no surprise that this holds equally true for folks on both sides of the political spectrum.  If you have any interest at all in this topic, I highly recommend you go here and here for the details.

So, problem solved….I’ve answered to my satisfaction how we decide what to believe…now off to begin my next major inquiry, seeking the answer to that age old question… how do they make paper? I’ll report back…so what do you believe?

Science, well sort of…the final definitive answer on fracking

Wait, what was the question?  Oh right… some months ago I undertook a journey seeking to answer the question, is fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?  I started this quest for two reasons...one to get some clarity in my own mind on the issue, but more importantly, I hoped the exercise would serve as a model to show how we each come to our own conclusions on what to believe on sciency issues.  If you are just catching up, you can follow the journey here ('The experiment begins', 'Fracking open my brain', 'Midterm').  My governing theory behind all this, which frankly I’m coming to doubt more and more as time passes, is that by illuminating how we come to our beliefs, we all might have a better shot at doing so accurately…honestly…scientifically…and most important to me for some reason, non-ideologically.

Ok, here goes…the definitive answer to the question posed is… yes. Everyone cool with that?  Shockingly, I’m guessing not.  So now for the one caveat and then my rationale.

The caveat for the answer is simply that it is mine.  It’s the answer I came to after my own exploration.  It is not absolute, it is no doubt based in some significant part on my own biases as I sought to parse the fine points that lie between the debates, and it is subject to revision as time goes by.  I had originally thought I would seek out two experts on either side of the debate to help me decide, but after digging in deeper, I realized I could just as easily read their work, and frankly, once things got technical, I would have to defer to my own judgment in any case.  So the answer is yes….here’s how I came to my conclusion.

I will stipulate that there are indeed risks posed by fracking…but I did not set out to see if it was safe, rather, to find out if the benefits outweigh the risks.  In my judgment they do.  The risks come in two categories, localized and global.  The localized risks include groundwater contamination, earthquakes and other general environmental disturbances that come with the drilling of wells.  In my review, while there are anecdotal examples for all of the above, and always will be, I could not find any data supporting systemic impacts for any of these risks.  Some argue that the absence of evidence of risk is not evidence that there is no risk, and I get that.  But so far, if we follow the data available, this is where we are.  My bet is that more studies will not materially alter this conclusion….Biased?

The global risks are twofold…the release of methane during the drilling and fracking process, and the broad question of what does natural gas replace.  Several years ago claims were made that the release of extra methane during fracking would overwhelm the benefits of using natural gas in place of coal.  This idea gained a lot of traction and its authors were widely cited.  The problem is, there is now a pretty clear consensus that they were just plain wrong. The methane release debate is insanely complex, as all these things are, but I was persuaded by the preponderance of evidence at this point that methane leaks are not a material problem.

The policy and market driven question of what does natural gas replace is for me the biggest one.  This is where the critics of fracking make the most compelling points.  If the increase in cheap locally sourced natural gas does not replace higher carbon energy sources as it is deployed, the argument goes, we’re screwed.  So don’t spend time on it, and move straight to zero carbon alternatives.  In a perfect world I vote for this too…but, well, you know…so living in this world we need to look at what is possible now.  We have to set policies that will still push for the rapid deployment of all zero carbon energy sources.  We have to price carbon so that the market works more efficiently to encourage lower or no carbon alternatives.  We need to move away from coal, globally and fast.  Natural gas, which is essentially methane by the way, has about half the CO2 of coal, and if it is locally sourced and used, has an added benefit of a lower end to end carbon footprint.   It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better and has contributed in a marked reduction of US CO2 output.  Is it enough? No.  Is it on balance worth continuing to develop more natural gas by fracking? Yes.

A friend and colleague used the analogy that if you’re driving towards a cliff at 60 mph, you need to do more than slow to 50… Agreed.  But to get to a stop, you have to slow to 50 first along the way.  In my judgment fracking can have that effect….so, what do you believe?

PS…I purposely did not include any citations to my sources to avoid clutter, and because I am lazy.  However, if you have doubts about my conclusions, I’ll point you to how I got there in the comments.

Science, well sort of…. A fracking midterm report

Ok, best intentions notwithstanding, I’m way behind on my self-imposed schedule of completing the promised three part series on fracking.  Part one (here) generated an unprecedented number of responses from you all …clearly readership is now firmly in the low double digits…I’m humbled.  And I do promise to complete the series, but until then, I thought it might be useful to quickly share with you some of the comments I received as they point to the vexing complexity of this project, and therefore may serve as part of my excuse for being late on my homework. Consider this part 1.5 of the now 3.5 part series…ugh.

First, a number of you asked me to "show my work"…what were the sources of information that led to my conclusions after round one, so that you could check me and arrive at your own conclusions.  Well, that will be hard, as my research process resembles the wiring of my brain…random and disjointed. But frankly, that’s exactly how I wanted to approach the project, mimicking how I go about my day to day media consumption, rather than using a rigorous approach.  I would start with an article I ran across in the NYT, SF Chronicle or Twitter, and then follow threads where they took me, be it via embedded links or just the magic of Google, driven by my curiosity (…biases?). So I found myself on sites such as 'Shale Shock', the Shale Reporter, Propublica, various UC Berkeley Centers for the study of blah blah blah, and so on.  My point was not to get to an objective truth, but to examine how I got to mine.  But bottom line, I was too lazy to document my research so I’m unable satisfy those of you who want to double check me…sorry.

Another point raised by several folks was that I was not framing the question correctly. Or perhaps to be more precise, I was framing the question too narrowly.  Here’s what I said initially …
"I set out to answer the question, is fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?"

You pointed out that I may have missed some important aspects of the issue by framing it in this way.  First, there is the question of what does natural gas replace.  If it is coal or other high carbon sources, you concede it will likely result in an overall reduction of GHG’s…but if the consequence of cheap and plentiful natural gas is to slow the development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, or zero carbon sources such as nuclear, well then not so much.  I was also chastised for focusing too narrowly on the feared direct impacts of fracking, such as potential groundwater contamination, methane release and increased drilling, and not on the more nuanced points.  And you’re right, darn you.  For example, it was also pointed out that the impact of fracking on the reduction of GHG’s will largely be the result of governmental policy and regulation rather than just the free market.  Again, this is directly related to what natural gas replaces as the result of tax incentives, energy policy, how tight regulations are, etc.  Again, you are no doubt right.

Next many of you on the sciency side of the issue made some great points that can be summed up as “we just don’t have enough data yet”.  This is of course correct, but we have to be careful as it may also be a bit of a red herring.  I will concede that there will always be a need for more and better data on this, as on any complex issue.  But we also have to acknowledge that the demand for ‘certainty’, or at least more research, is often used as a device to divert, delay or obfuscate.  So while I concede this is very much an emerging issue about which we do indeed need more data (the methane release issue came up in particular) we also need to be honest with ourselves. At the end of the day, we reach our conclusions based not only on data, but on the host of other factors I have been droning on incessantly about in this blog….emotions, biases, fear, community, etc.

Finally, I have been gratified by the number of offers you made to provide me with the experts I’m seeking, to make their best case on the issue…it’s going to be tough to figure out who to choose.

So there, with your indulgence, is my midterm report…I promise to get the rest of my work turned in on time, unless of course my dog acts up again…so, what do you believe?

Science, well sort of… fracking open my brain!

Boy this has been a trip.  I set out to answer the question, is fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?   For phase one of this “experiment”, my methodology was to drift through my normal day to day interactions with various media (almost all on line now, BTW) and see where the stories and reports took me.  I probably spent about 10 hours over the last few weeks reading and listening to various sources assuming that this would lead me to an operating thesis or general conclusion.  I then planned (and still intend) to take my thesis and test it with some true experts on both sides of the proposition to see where that leads me.  But even as I started my troll through my media, I ran into a major and perhaps insurmountable roadblock to the truth…me.

As I have meandered around and under the issue of how we decide what to believe, a central touch stone to my thinking has been if we can somehow make folks aware of how they come to their beliefs, if they can be brought to a conscious level, then this may have a positive impact on their decision making.  And unselfconsciously, I have probably held myself up as an example of what can be achieved by this seemingly laudable approach.  Just be self-aware and all will be well.

So going in to my fracking experiment, I was indeed well aware of my biases.  I cataloged them, steeled myself against their intrusion, even asking for your help.  But what I was not prepared for was that despite my supposed awareness, I gleefully and unabashedly raced from source to source seeking to confirm my biases while shunning conflicting data.  I repeatedly reveled in proving myself right and avoided looking at contrary information…I frankly found it nearly impossible to approach the information objectively…oh my, even smarty-pants me.

Here’s how it played out…

First, I found little if any debate about the fact that natural gas emits about half the GHG’s of coal.  So going in any risks would need to outweigh that benefit…so far so good.

One of the major knocks on fracking is the environmental harm it is purported to cause.  This includes contaminated groundwater water, releases of methane and potential earthquakes due to the fracking.

As I started to look into these issues, my bias against zealots who stake out positions based on ideology or fear rather than science soon overwhelmed my noble quest.

My casual surfing of the various media took me to sources such as  “The Shale Reporter”, which  tells us of a man claiming to be sickened by the radioactive content of the fracking fluid flow-back who only gets relief from homeopathic remedies (…don’t get me started). On the radio, the Executive Director of an Anti Fracking NGO was unable to cite a single example of actual groundwater contamination.  I followed other threads of various claims about water contamination, and threats of exposure to lead, arsenic and innumerable carcinogens and they kept coming back to a single source, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange and Dr. Theo Colborn.  And while no doubt well intentioned, and despite protests to the contrary, the evidence offered there is not based on rigorous science. My search reinforced over and again my bias that the fears about the potential health effects of groundwater contamination may be ideological rather than scientific…and frankly confirming this bias is easier and more gratifying than challenging it.  So when I see that the EPA will issue a major report next year on fracking impact on groundwater, I already assume it will generally confirm my position, while of course calling for more research. Remember, more research is ALWAYS needed.

Similarly, my dilatory cruising of the web unearthed serious doubt about the scientific basis for claims that methane release is a big problem.  Early studies making the claim have been refuted, and at worst there seems to be pretty easy technological fix.  But again, in my gut I know I’m seeking out the threads that confirm this conclusion rather than challenge it.

Next, losing heart, I only looked into one claim about earthquakes, which gave me comfort by telling me that if they are caused by fracking, which is uncertain, they are minute and therefore inconsequential.

Finally, my head exploded when I ran across the quote below from one of California’s State Legislators in reference to a law that would potentially place a moratorium on fracking…

"What I'm trying to do is say to the oil companies, 'Look, if there's never been a problem with fracking, if it's safe, you need to prove that to the public,' " said Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County).

See here on the impossibility of proving something will not harm you, and yet we keep making that demand.

Look, I have no doubt that fracking poses legitimate risks.  Also, I’m sure it is not nice to have a well in your back yard…but so far I have not bought into the idea that the downsides outweigh the potential benefit of reduced GHG’s.  The question is, have I come to this conclusion because I’m unable to resist confirming my existing biases, or is it objectively true…we’ll ask the experts next time.  So, what do you believe?

Science, well sort of…The experiment begins, on the topic of….

Well, I’ll tell you in a second.  Regular readers, and bless all 8 of you, will recall that I’ve taken on the task of exploring how one comes to a belief by conducting an experiment on myself  - right here, on this blog (background here). I’ve  picked a topic that is sciency and that I honestly don’t know much about and I’m going to document how I form my conclusions on it.  I guess the uber idea is to serve as a model of sorts, with the hoped for result of getting you to examine your own path to your beliefs as you see how I arrive at mine. When I announced this experiment, several of you suggested topics for me to examine.  I hated all of them, partly because I had already decided, but mainly because your ideas were far better than mine.  But my original idea stuck in my head, so I’m going with the topic of… fracking.

To start, I need to come clean about my overall biases. First I am generally skeptical about proclamations of absolute certainty on any topic.  So I’m assuming going in that my conclusion will be a nuanced one, with many shades of grey.  Second, I tend to dismiss sources that I deem to be purely ideologically motivated, both left and right.  But this can be a trap, because motivation does not necessarily make the claim factually wrong.  The problem with all biases is that we often unconsciously seek to confirm them by interpreting information to align with our preconceived notions.  So feel free to call me out if you see me erring.

In terms of the topic, the specific question I’m seeking to answer is whether fracking, and the resulting increase in the availability and use of natural gas, is on balance a ‘good thing’ as it relates to climate change. In other words, will fracking result in a meaningful reduction in GHG’s, and will the associated risks/costs be worth that reduction?  Easy one, right?

My Methodology
I thought I should set out my plan of how I’m going to go about this effort on the near non-existent chance that someone might seek to replicate it. First, you should know that I have been consciously avoiding reading or listening to anything on the topic of fracking since I picked it about a month ago. And quite frankly I had read little before then, so I truly am going into this pretty open.  My plan is for the next month to simply start reading everything that I run across on the topic.  This should be easy as my twitter feed and various news channels are replete with mentions of it.  But here is the first problem… I self-selected these sources, and I’m assuming the provided perspective will be a skewed one.  So to counter balance this I’ll also seek out other sources I might not otherwise stumble upon, and just see how it goes.  I’ll then report back on my preliminary conclusion and how I arrived at it.   And here’s where you come in. Over this next month feel free to point me to any data you think I should look at.  I’d particularly value sources that challenge the status quo, either pro or con.  I’ll include your suggestions in my search unless I judge them to be whacky.   My thinking is that this is how we generally come to conclusions about a topic, by just kind of drifting towards it with random inputs from various media, friends, etc.

After I report back on my initial conclusions, I intend to get serious, and actually seek out authoritative sources on both sides of the issue and ask them to make their case. Not yet sure who this will include, but I’m guessing the natural gas industry, various academics, and advocacy groups.  What fun.  Again I’ll ask for your suggestions.  I’ll give myself another month to absorb all this new information, see the impact on my beliefs and then report back again.

Finally, I’m going to go back and double check myself to see if I have allowed biases or other errors to creep in.  I’ll do this with the help of my friend Dr. Anthony Pratkanis who has spent a career researching belief formation and has a number if interesting strategies that will help in my self-assessment.  I mention Anthony by name in part to show you how serious I am about this, but mainly to impress you with the quality of my friends.  I’ll then issue my final conclusions…gulp.

So, what do you believe?

Science, well Sort of….blah, blah, blah, part 2

In my last post (here) I sought to lay out how I go about assessing scientifically based claims.  Running out of room I punted with a promise to come back with a  part 2…This will be quick, because I really want to move on to the next phase of this exploration….but before that,  when deciding what to believe, let’s be sure to:

Embrace Systemic Causation.

After Hurricane Sandy last summer the interweb lit up with hand wringing over whether the claim could justifiably be made that climate change was the ‘cause’ of the hurricane. Sciency sounding cases were made for both sides of the argument…and I was personally unconvinced/confused until I read this and was persuaded we were engaged in the wrong debate altogether.  In the article, Berkeley’s George Lakoff makes the case for “systemic causation”.  Simply put, some systems are too large or complex to be able to attribute direct causation.  Climate change causing extreme weather, smoking causing cancer, sex leading to HIV/AIDS, sugar’s role in obesity,  are some of many examples of systemic causation.  In each case we know from observation and research that while these are determinative factors, it is impossible to show direct causation in any single instance.  This is the case in almost all complex or emergent systems.  Note that Lakoff is not a physical scientist, and I’m sure this concept makes many of them squirm, but again that misses the point.  When we have to make a judgment informed by confusing and often conflicting data, we need to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than get tied up in superfluous debates about direct causation.

And there is another important aspect of systemic causation…which is to be on the lookout for when you don’t see evidence of it.  Classic examples here are supposed dangers caused by cell phone “radiation” and harmful GMO’s….In each case, there are massive amounts of exposure, or causes, but no observable effects.  If they were in fact harmful, we would expect to see evidence of systemic causation by now after decades of use…you may not like the point, but I’m sure you get it.

Next, be sure to:

Beware of Epistemic Closure.

Don’t be intimidated by the title…it simply means don’t allow yourself to be persuaded only by folks you violently agree with already.  The Conservative economist and policy wonk Bruce Bartlett wrote an excellent piece on this here. In talking about post-fact, post-science politics he notes, “This was my first exposure to what has been called “epistemic closure” among conservatives—living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction”.  There are of course many examples of this on the nominal political right, from creationism to climate denial …but before my progressive friends get too smug, note that many on the political left are circulating their own nonsensical ideas about the dangers of vaccination,  and EMF emitting devices or the healing powers of homeopathy. Anyone can fall prey to this.  In fact, to varying degrees, we all do. So my best suggestion is to “friend” and “follow” folks you disagree with, read blogs and magazines that offer different perspectives, and generally seek out smart folks who you don’t normally listen to…Simply, push yourself out of your comfort zone and self-created filter bubble.

And finally:

Accept the Limits of Science.

This one is at once simple, and agonizingly complex.  The simple part is grounded in understanding what science cannot do.  It can never provide absolute certainty.  It is not set up to “prove” things with finality, but rather to generate ever more questions and lines of inquiry. Further, it cannot prove something will not happen.  The best example is it cannot prove something cannot harm you.  It can show that it likely will or likely won’t, to various degrees, but is never absolutely definitive. (...go for it, cite me an example where I’m wrong on this).   And perhaps most importantly, science is never “settled”.  Each discovery, revelation and explanation simply leads to new avenues of research ….it is never ending.

And this is where the agony comes in…we really, really don’t like it this way.  We look to science for answers, assurance and proof.  We are frustrated and confused by the noise coming in from both sides of every debate, drowned by seemingly conflicting data, and we are often simply unable to understand the jargon employed…How do we figure out what to believe when even the scientific experts seem to disagree, or we simply can’t understand them?…Well, once again we've come full circle.   Which leads me to my brilliant new idea.

I’m going to conduct...

A Science Experiment.

I’ll be the test subject, and you will be the scientist observing the experiment, and to make it easier for you, I’ll even take the notes. So the experiment will be that I will select a topic currently being debated in the public sphere that has a basis in science.  It’s a topic that I frankly have not taken the time to understand, and therefore I really don’t know what to believe about it.  You’ll observe me on this journey as I decide what to believe, with the idea that we both might learn something, both on the specific topic and on the nature of beliefs. So, the topic I have selected is…..no, I think I’ll make you wait until next time…(insert your favorite wry smile emoticon here).

So, what do you believe?

Science, well sort of...me forcing me to answer my own question

In one of my recent posts I had some fun with the topic “…the six things I want our kids to know about science” … of course there are more, but it was a good start.  Among the comments I received on the post, one from a friend posed a troubling question, which could be restated as, “OK wise guy, how DO we help our kids figure out what to believe with all this seemingly conflicting and confusing sciency stuff?”  In re-reading my rants on this subject I realize that while I have done a passable job of laying out the challenge of figuring out how to decide what to believe, I’ve done a crap job in providing any answers to the question how.  This led to some rapid self- reflection, asking myself the question, “OK wise guy, how do YOU figure out what to believe with all this seemingly conflicting and confusing sciency stuff?”  …fie on self-reflection. But the effort did allow me to see that I do have a bit of method to my madness, outlined here.

My first step in assessing the validity of a claim is pretty much always the same… I take a really, really close look at the source. I feel this is the best place to start, and while taking a bit of time and effort it can often yield immediate results. If the source does not pass the smell test, then move on.  This exercise breaks down into two broad categories, qualification and motivation.

Part one: Assess if the source is qualified to make the claim

For me, this one is pretty straight forward... Do they have the expertise, track record and just plain legitimacy to make claims? If I don’t immediately recognize the source of a claim, such as a major university, research institute, etc, a quick internet check can be very revealing.  A couple of my favorite examples here are when I Google mapped the location of a very sciency sounding institute that was putting out climate change denial lies, and it turns out they are housed in a small out-building on a dirt road in rural Oregon; or when a legitimate sounding, oft quoted source on the danger of GMOs turned out to be a group of osteopaths in Kansas who did no research at all, but just passed along bogus information.  I’ve done these searches many times and it’s really amazing how much you can learn about the sources of the nonsense that gets put out, and then picked up, by the media, bloggers, interest groups or your Facebook friends.  You don’t have to be a scientist to figure this out…just consider the source and use your judgment.

BONUS Tactic - If you still have lingering doubts about a source, look into how they get their funding, who is on their Board of Directors and, if they are a nonprofit, have a quick look at their tax returns (not hard, go here http://www.guidestar.org) … lots of insight to be gained doing this.

Part Two: Assess the motivation of the source making the claim
This one seems straight forward, but you have to be careful. When examining the motivation of a source, it is easy to fall into the trap of, “Well, of course they would say that, it is in their self-interest”.  Self-interest can take many forms, such as a financial stake in the outcome, academic rewards, pressure to conform to an ideological perspective and just plain status/ego/hubris.  The tricky problem here though is that many perfectly valid sources have self-interest in the claims they make, or at least can be accused of having so.  Therefore, self-interest should never be an immediate disqualification of the validity of a claim.  But it does play a role, and needs to be viewed in the context of the other factors.  In the recent effort to label GMOs in California, the claims made by the large food industry were attacked in part for their self-interested motivation to maintain the status quo…fair enough.  But you had to also understand that many pro labeling folks also had significant self-interest at stake, in this case the growth of non GMO food markets. So yes, once again you’ll have to exercise some judgment, and weigh all the factors.  My next stop is the data itself.

This is probably the hardest part for us nonscientists, because if you ever try to look at the actual data underlying any claim, unless you are an expert in the field, you quickly realize that you really don’t fully understand what is being presented…in fact, that’s why we rely on trusted sources to interpret and explain the meaning of the data. So my approach is to assess the preponderance and longevity of the data from qualified sources supporting the claim.  Examples…the data to support the claims of human caused climate change is overwhelming and longstanding, while that to support the risks of GMOs is essentially nonexistent.  I could go on, but the point is that we need to weigh a number of factors in assessing claims.  Sadly, there is no easy or simple approach, but it’s certainly worth the effort.

Yikes, I’ve reached my self-imposed word limit, having no doubt lost most readers already (…sorry gang).   I’ll close for now, but to keep you on the edge of your seats, next time I’ll weave in systemic causation, epistemic closure and the limits of science on how they factor in to our beliefs…consider this part one of two…nothing but wacky fun on this blog… [Sic].

So, what do you believe?

Science, well sort of….my dog ate my GMO’s!

OK…Imagine this scenario…there is an issue that is being debated in the public sphere that is heavily informed by science.  But within the scientific community there is little real debate and in fact there is a broad, overwhelming consensus.  All leading scientific organizations, national academies around the world, and international agencies agree.  But there is a small group of folks who question or deny the science….and their influence on the policy debate is disproportionate to their numbers.  They may be at times motivated by economic interest, but almost always by an adherence to ideology over scientific data.  They utilize long debunked but well-worn methods in furthering their cause, such as cherry picking data to skew results, impugning the motivation of the scientists and using fear as a weapon in their fight. They ask science to provide what it cannot, absolute certainty, and cite this failure in their cause. Many are veterans of previous campaigns.

You’d be forgiven if you thought this was a summary of the battle lines in the climate change debate…but that’s not the issue I’m describing here today..... sorry folks…this is about the debate around GMO’s.  I’ve consciously not weighed in on this one to date (ugh, which would have meant reading a whole bunch of sciencey stuff…who has the time these days?), but I can’t sit on the sidelines any longer.  And while there are a host of battle lines in this issue as well, today I’m going to focus on the debate around food labeling as embodied in California’s Proposition 37.

I’ll start by saying I’m honestly not trying to sway the opinions of the firmly decided.  Many have staked out their positions on both sides of this debate, and I can appreciate their perspectives.  Nor am I going re-litigate the whole GMO debate in this limited space. It is, however, my objective to share my thought process on how I have come to the conclusion that I will be voting “no” on Prop 37.

First, it claims to be simply a right to know issue, as in “we have a right to know what is in our food.”  What could possibly be wrong with that…well a few things.  Implicit in the argument for the “right” to know is a “need” to know, that this information will somehow benefit or protect the consumer.  Here comes the pesky science… the simple fact is that after decades of both laboratory (experiments to see if this stuff is bad) and real world (billions of people and animals eating billions of tons of GMO’s) results, there has been no data to show this stuff is bad for us. Now, the use of GMO’s may in fact lead to other consequences we might wish to debate, such as the value of large agri-business over local organic farms, the use of pesticides, etc.  But here, too, when we look at the data, we get a mixed bag of results.  While some GMO crops lead to more pesticides, others lead to less.  Many are drought resistant which, in a rapidly changing climate, is a good thing.  And while I love and eat almost exclusively organic foods, I can afford to, and I’m not yet convinced we can feed the world’s population using only organic methods.  So for me, and the folks at the National Academies of Science, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, the AMA, and the Royal Society of Medicine to name just a few, there is no scientifically based “need” for this labeling.

But wait, you say, all those scientists have been wrong in the past…shouldn’t we play it safe, just in case?  I appreciate how attractive and benign the use of the precautionary principle feels here.  But my concern is that the real intent of this proposition is to slow or completely stop the use of GMO’s.  As I’ve said, I believe the consequences of that are potentially far more detrimental than some minute and as yet unproven risk, so I’m drawing my line in the sand here.

Other problems with Prop 37 for me include that even if we stipulate that the theoretical risk of GMO’s does constitute a “need” for labeling, how is it that the proposition excludes meat and dairy producers, as well as restaurants from labeling? This just makes no sense to me, and leads me to question the judgments of those behind this initiative (…yup, I do that too).

Finally, I feel it is very important for all of us, if we are to win the larger debates around public policy as impacted by science, that we are consistent in our approach to the science underlying those debates.  If by default we pick and choose our “science” based on our ideology, what our friends say or some blog on the internet, how can we effectively stand up to other science denial around issues such as climate change and evolution.  And perhaps most importantly, our kids are watching us…they have finely tuned BS meters that can ferret out our inconsistencies…how do we arm them for their future, and embolden them to think critically,  if we ourselves don’t follow the course we wish for them.

So, what do you believe?

Click this link to check out my other blogs on the Science,...well sort of 

Reflections: Integration of new technology in both formal and informal educational settings

This past year I had the opportunity to sit on the California State Superintendent of Education’s Education Technology Taskforce.  Comprised of primarily educators and school administrators ( I was an outlier), we had the charge of providing Superintendent Torlakson with a series of strategic recommendations that would help shape his California Education Technology Blueprint; essentially a plan for how to transition, if not transform education in the era of modern technology.  Our report can be found here: California State Superintendent of Education’s Education Technology Taskforce Report.

Some fascinating facts to set the context for our work…currently, it can take up to six years for the State to adopt a new textbook into the approved curriculum.  Technologies are born, mature and then die within that timeframe.   A newly introduced text today would not even mention the IPhone, let alone Twitter or the whole App phenomenon. How can a traditional textbook keep up with this pace?  Second, while most students, and nearly all by the time they reach high school, are digitally savvy and connected, utilizing and indeed developing new ways to integrate technology into their everyday lives, they are required to turn their devices off in school.  So one of the most powerful tools for communication, creativity, information and learning is shut off by policy in the very setting it could and should be most useful.  Finally, instruction continues to be measured and indeed funded by formulas that value hours of time students are sitting in the classroom rather than the quality of the learning.

Clearly some daunting challenges…  Combine these with reduced resources, pockets of resistance to change from every corner (teachers, school boards, administrators, textbook publishers, etc.), and an ever changing playing field, more and more at an accelerating pace, one can appreciate the depth and breadth of the challenge for formal education.

And while I encourage you to read our recommendations, and indeed take the opportunity to engage in the process of transformation, for the purposes of our field I think there are some interesting lessons and parallels from these challenges that we should be paying attention to.

First, there needs to be the simple recognition of the fact that the world outside is moving at a pace of change and innovation that our institutions are rarely able to adequately adapt to.  I’ll use some recent work here at Chabot Space and Science Center as an example.  In conjunction with our Bill Nye’s Climate Lab, we developed a highly engaging interactive website designed to connect and integrate the visitor experience with the Climate Lab.  We used an award winning design firm and indeed created a rich and wonderful site…in fact we were nominated for a Webby for our work….One problem…at the time we started the development of the site, the only robust option for the integration of video into the content (and we had lots of it) was to use Adobe Flash.   By the time it was launched, the IPhone and IPad were well on their way towards market dominance, and Apple had made the decision to not support Flash…oops. 

So back to the drawing board, we have decided to abandon the site, and migrate the entire online experience to a mobile game format that will be available across all platforms…but here again, even during the time of development, IOS 6 is launched and Amazon comes out with the Kindle Fire.   We’ll be able to deal with this, but the point is, what will happen 6 months after we launch…after one year? Look around your institution…how many cool digital exhibits or interactives look dated or downright ancient, at least by modern tech standards.  The point is, I feel we need to seriously rethink how we go about integrating technology into our exhibit development cycles.   One approach is to figure out how to best use our visitor’s devices, rather than trying to impose our judgment on which platform will best serve the user…unless we do so, my feeling is that we’ll be wrong more often than we’ll be right. 

Another point from the task force is that in formal education we need to ensure that there is a connection with learning and the real world.  A short hand way of thinking about this is moving from theory to practice or applicability.  A simple example might be that rather than having lectures on chemistry, have the student work in a lab or a brewery to see and experience the application of chemistry in the real world…Beer!  For our field, I feel that too often we do a great job of laying out the theory, and even compelling examples of it, yet rarely connect back out to current applicability.  The challenge here is that our examples are often static, fixed in time and place (and yes, even if they are “digital”), while the real world is dynamic.  Again, tough to keep up, yet that’s what is expected of us in today’s world.

Finally, another principle from the taskforce that I think has some applicability for us is that learning should occur “any time, any place and at any pace”.  This speaks to the point that learning can, should and does take place at times other than sitting in the class listening to a lecture.  In fact, many argue that little real learning occurs in such a setting.  Yet like the classroom with its Victorian era constructs, we too often require the museum visitor to take us on our terms rather than meeting them on theirs.  I feel that long term this is not sustainable.  Like every other content provider (look what’s happening in journalism, television, music and yes, text book publishing) if we do not actively participate in our own creative destruction, we will become the victims of its outcomes rather than the master.  

Science, well sort of...the 6 things I want our kids to know about science

As I write about science, how it’s understood and its impact, I often get caught in the weeds of one issue or another…but the more I look at this, the more I’ve come to believe that we all need to back away a bit, and look at science as a meta issue (not really sure what that means, but it sounds good).  And frankly, this will be lost on most of you reading this because you’ve already solidified your views on both the meaning and implications of science.  So that’s why I’m focusing on our kids…here are Uncle Alex’s 6 rules to know about science…you are not allowed to play science before you commit these to memory.

1. Improperly using words that start with “C” can get you into trouble

I’m speaking of course about causation, correlation and certainty.   Causation is something that happens because of something else, and correlation is something that happens next to something else.  The significance of the distinction is if you know what causes something else, you can change the outcome, like when we understand what causes diseases; But if it only correlates to something, not so much.  Pretty straight forward on the face of it, but the misunderstanding of the distinction between the two, and the nominal desire for certainty leads to endless endlessness.  A great example is the claim, “smoking causes cancer”.  Well, yes it does, but darn, not always.  So is less than 100% causation only a correlation…again, not really.  It’s those pesky variables such as genetics, amount and length of smoking, etc…Further, to figure out when something is causation or correlation does not follow a simple black and white rule.  Therefore, we need to look at the bigger picture…here for instance we have decided that smoking causes cancer and other health effects sufficiently to warrant social and political action to try to limit smoking, which is bad for people, bad for health care costs, etc.  So as individuals and as a society we have an interest in accepting the results of the science, even though it is not absolute and determinative.  My dear old grandmother smoked filter less Pall Malls until she was 86, but that does not justify changing efforts to reduce smoking.

As for certainty, well science simply can’t provide it. In fact, rather than seeking certainty, science seeks to constantly test and question previous assumptions of fact.  And while we think we desire certainty, we really don’t need it in nearly all cases…this tends to really bum people out sometimes.

2. All science is not the same, nor are all scientists

This is a two parter that leads to lots of confusion when trying to figure out what to believe.  Part one is about science itself.  We hear daily about this study or that which seems to conflict with other previous studies.  How could this be? Lots of reasons…the variables or testing conditions were slightly different, inadequate sampling methods, spurious data, miss calibrated instruments, stoned grad students…and the list goes on.  The point is this is tricky stuff and we should never read all results as equal.  And this is even more the case when the word “social” precedes science.  The second part goes to the scientists themselves.  Frankly, just because someone has a PhD in a discipline does not mean they are able or qualified to opine on topics outside their very narrow expertise.  Nor does a graduate degree confer objectivity, lack of bias, or ideological purity.  Heck, they may not even be decent scientists, so be careful kids.

3. It’s impossible to prove that something won’t happen

This one is closely linked to the fact that science can never provide absolute certainty.   In a nutshell, while science is excellent (but not perfect) at predicting what will happen, it is unable to prove something will not happen.  For example, science cannot prove that something cannot harm you, it can only predict that it might…This one is a bit of a mind bender, but always be suspicious when folks demand proof that something is safe…that proof cannot be supplied by science, period.

4. The “Ant Colony Problem”

Science is by its nature reductionist, taking various elements of complex systems and testing hypotheses about them piece by piece…however, this may or may not tell us meaningful things about the systems as a whole.  My favorite example of this is ant colonies.  The fundamental unit of the colony is the ant.  However, no matter how much we study any individual ant, how much science we throw at it, it will never be able to tell us how the colonies function as a whole.  Therefore, we need to be really careful about taking narrow results and using them to explain complex systems.

5. Science on the way to or from church

Science is not the opposite of faith, religion, spirituality or whatever term your parents are comfortable using.  However, a key conflict between the two does exist.  While science can never proclaim certainty, faith often does.  Therefore, scientific thinking can be perceived as threatening simply because it requires an openness to revise thinking base on new data and experimental outcomes, as opposed to faith, which is often held has certain, absolute and immutable.  So it’s not that science provides alternate answers, but rather that any answer must remain open to further examination and revision.

Science is glorious, and helps us understand the world and our place in it.  But it will never provide all the answers, only more data from which we are challenged to arrive at broader conclusions and which will always require further research.

6.  …and just to mess with your young minds

There are many unknown things… there may be unknowable things…it is unknown whether there are unknowable things.  (Credit to my good friend Leonard Tramiel for this one…not sure if he made it up, or like me, stole it)

Now go out and goof off….you’ll probably learn something important in doing so.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link for earlier blogs on ...the Science...well sort of:  http://www.chabotspace.org/open-science.htm

Science, well sort of …VinoCaffeChocolata risk/benefits revealed!

In my previous post I called out some norms of journalism that have the effect of diluting and confusing the role of science in shaping our beliefs or informing our views. I labeled these ‘balance’, ‘controversy’ and ‘replication’. Oh so cleverly, I even used a real ‘science’ experiment to prove my point… In a nutshell, the experiment showed us that journalism and the media are inherently limited …that by their very nature, news stories can never really get it ‘right’, particularly when the issues at hand are complex, nuanced and informed by science.

But here’s the rub…this is not a failing of the media.  It simply is what it is.  The real failing, if there is one, is our inability to recognize these inherent limits.  We consume media blindly, agree with it when it conforms to our beliefs and dismiss it when it does not.  We expect accuracy and objectivity only when it suits us, and yet we crave controversy and flagrantly pass along bunk.  We are all complicit in the creation of our myths, our world views.  Railing against the media for its failures to tell the truth, whether it comes from the left or right, rational or emotional, science or faith based perspectives, completely misses the point.  As our buddy Pogo told us long ago (…did I just date myself? Google it kids) “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

The essential point is that news, like science, just spits out data.  Its truth or meaning is not derived from the objective finding, but rather by the meaning we give it.  Some examples from recent headlines can help make the point…

Radioactive kelp and fish linked to Fukushima found along Western US coast!

Cards on the table…I am a proponent of nuclear energy as part of a solution to mitigate global warming and feel that fears about anything to do with radiation are generally wildly overblown. So when I read these headlines, I immediately sought to confirm my bias, which in this case was pretty easy to do.  While the ‘data’  does indeed show some minute radioactive traces in the kelp and fish, what does it mean?  Not much it turns out.  Levels were so small they pose zero, none, nada risk.  Further, one could argue that this simply confirms that stuff moves around in the world’s oceans…not shocking.   But if your bias is that nuclear energy is bad, risky etc, then those details didn’t matter to you…The fact that ANY radiation got here was the meaning you gave it, and that probably bothered you…see how this goes?

Studies show X to increase the risk of Y by Z percent! (so many examples of this it’s easier to use algebra, and that’s never easy, at least for me).
Lots of ramifications come from these types of headlines, which we seem to see daily.   To make one up, let’s say that “Aspirin is shown to increase the risk of ulcers by 5%”.  Hmmm, what does this mean?  How do we interpret the data?  In many of these cases, I think the first question to ask is 5% of what?  Did it go from nothing to 5% (which by the way is not a 5% increase, but I don’t want to get too mathy here)?  Or did it got from 95% to 100%…a totally different thing.  And remember, these are only statistical probabilities, never statements of certainty.

Unfortunately, the media can be 100% correct in reporting the data on stories such as these, and yet completely miss the meaning or relevance in a host of ways.  And it gets even worse when they inject the norms of balance, controversy and or replication.  Again, if you really want to know the meaning, you’ll have to do a lot of work on your own…and we have to admit it’s unlikely that we will.  More likely we will simply filter information to align with our preconceived world views or experiences.  Sorry, but we can’t lay that off on the media.

Studies show VinoCaffeChocolata is proven to extend/shorten the pleasure/pain of life/death!
Oh, my very favorite… Again, full disclosure, to varying degrees and at different times of the day, I’m extremely fond (gulp…dependent??) on these substances.  Drugs all, they alter my moods, energize me etc. So when I read reports of studies that seem to indicate their benefits, I embrace them; and any bad news is shuffled away to the waste bin of my brain.  I conveniently forget that the World Health Organization classifies coffee as a possible carcinogen (along with a lot of other stuff, but that too is another column) and celebrate that it’s OK for women to have some alcohol when pregnant, as no doubt my Mom did back in the 50’s with me.

My bottom line on all this is that the media is not entirely to blame for what we perceive to be their failings.  Sure, they’ll make lots of mistakes, but that is not the point.  Even if perfect, they can only give us data and an attempt at meaning.  We give the data the real meaning as it pertains to us, shaped by our biases, experience, world views etc.

So, what do you believe?

Science, well sort of...the media experiment you can do at home

This will be really exciting. …Today we’re going to do a real life SCIENCE experiment! … OK, well sort of.  For those of you nice enough to have read my previous posts, you’ll recall I’ve often woven in the impact of the media on our perceptions of science related issues. Today we’re going to get really sciency and dig way deeper.

So for our experiment we need to set up our “lab”, which will physically reside inside of your mind.  In order to ensure there is no danger of external contamination, turn off the TV and set your digital devices to airplane mode or something (admit it, you never really turn them off when taking off anyway).  Find a quiet place to sit, and close your eyes.

Now I want you to think back to a time when you had the occasion to read or see a news story about a topic or event with which you had personal experience.  You may have been one of the subjects of the story, or your company or family member was, or maybe you were just a firsthand witness to the circumstances that were being reported.  Now, quickly, think about the reporting …were all the facts correct, and perhaps more importantly, were all the facts included?  Was the context and meaning for those facts accurately portrayed?  Again, was anything missing or misrepresented?

According to my precise calculations based on the replication of this experiment many times, I can reliably predict the following…the story that you read or saw got it all wrong.  The journalist left things out, misrepresented the facts, got the context wrong, and just plain blew it.  You questioned the professionalism of that journalist, and perhaps even their intent.  And most importantly, the more you knew about the actual facts, the worse the story was.

So let’s deconstruct this…there are many things going on here at once.  First on the media side (we’ll came back to you later) there are a number of factors at work.  I won’t get into an exhaustive list here, but for me the top three are “balance”, “controversy” and “replication”.

We all recognize the first one – balance.  It’s where in order to appear unbiased and balanced in the reporting, the media seeks disparate or contrary views.  This journalistic norm can indeed play an important role, but not always.  A favorite anecdote to illustrate this is the time an old friend of mine was watching a TV reporter doing an on the street interview about plans for a new park in town.  He saw one person after another say they wanted and supported the new park … unless you are the grumpy old neighbor, who wouldn’t?  So after seeing about a dozen folks say they wanted it, he got an idea.  He walked up to the reporter and said he opposed the park, and that more parking lots were needed.  Of course, that night on the news, they showed one person speaking in favor of the park and my naughty buddy “opposing” it.  So despite actual overwhelming support for the park, the norm of balance in reporting resulted in the nominal impression of a 50-50 split of opinion on the issue, or at minimum, some material opposition to the park.  And perhaps most importantly, those of us who knew the least about the actual details of the story were left with a skewed impression of the facts.

Sadly we see this ”balance” being played out in reporting on a whole host of science based issues.  Time after time we see reports about science or health issues in which doubt is cast on the evidence simply by the media giving voice to an opposing view, no matter how minor, baseless or ridiculous.  And while it may be factually correct to say some folks have a different opinion, when it comes to science, mere opinion does not count; only rigorous evidence does. By employing the journalistic norm of balance the media is inadvertently giving credence and support to everyone from climate deniers to vaccination opponents.  And while these folks may feel they have valid reasons for their beliefs, they are not based on science.

This leads us to our second norm, the need for “controversy”.  “News is something somebody else doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising” said William Randolph Hearst.  Put another way, if there is no tension, dispute or controversy, the media in general has less interest.  It is the very tension of varying opinions or a dispute of facts that can make an issue newsworthy.  Therefore, by instinct, practice, and the desire to maximize revenues, the media often seeks or highlights stories where a nominal conflict is being played out. But as with “balance”, too often these are false controversies, existing only as an artifact of the publishing of opposing views.   Climate denial is exhibit A.

Finally, there is what I call “replication”.  This is the phenomenon that once a story gets reported, it is almost impossible to un-report it, no matter how wrong or false.  In the era of online 24/7 journalism, once published, a story can live forever.  Equally, elements of the story are then replicated in future stories on the same topic, irrespective of whether or not they are correct.  This is the outcome of cut and paste journalism, driven by the ever present need to fill the news hole.  A quick Google search will provide material previously (and often erroneously) reported, which then gets included in the new piece …and so it goes.

However, before we storm the Bastille of journalism, we need to step back and take a look at our own culpability in all this … but that’s for next time.  So …what do you believe?

Science, well sort of...pink slime is to fracking, as...

Jon Stewart is a genius … but you knew that.  On a recent show he weighed in on the whole pink slime thing, suggesting that instead of “pink slime” or “lean finely textured beef,” (its brand name) consumers should use the term “ammonia-soaked centrifuge separated byproduct paste.”

Sad life that I lead, I got to thinking more deeply about pink slime the other day.  At a meeting of environmental leaders we got into a conversation of how to better communicate the need for strategies to adapt to Climate Change. We noted that often we use words and terminology that unintentionally evokes the wrong message and that the lexicon of environmental sustainability is rarely a positive or inspiring one. As I’ve said before, “recycle, reuse, reduce” feel way to close to “remorse, regret and regress”…hardly ways to get the troops fired up.  Which brings me back to pink slime.

Lean finely textured beef, or LFTB*, has been around for years.  For the last decade, it’s been in an estimated 70% of the ground beef we consume.  And while the factories that produce it have been questioned over some of their health safety practices, by and of itself it won’t hurt you.  Ironically, although it uses a gross sounding process, so beautifully captured by Stewart, the result of that process is to remove fat from the beef.  So less fat should be good, right? Well, let’s not get sidetracked by scientific data here.  As our pals at Food Safety News note, “In hindsight, the controversy surrounding the product serves as a reminder that food safety, a topic often viewed through the lenses of science and risk assessment, can never entirely escape politics and emotion.”

Ah yes…emotion…which brings me back to the genius of Jon Stewart.  In one short phrase, he manages to pull some fabulous emotional triggers…let’s deconstruct.  “Ammonia soaked”…personally, I’m somewhere between smelling a nasty old mop, and worrying about the danger of those eye stinging plastic bottles found way under the sink. “Centrifuge separated”…hey, don’t they do that to make NUCLEAR BOMBS!  And finally, “byproduct paste”, which rhymes with waste and of course, stands for dog food…yummy.  So indeed, the troops got fired up, our elected leaders became appalled, the pundits hit the blogosphere, and pink slime is likely slithering away into the annals of history. Well, at least it’s not being served at Mickey D’s any longer.  And I’m not saying that this is a bad thing. There may be many valid reasons to have less pink slime in our lives…heck, I love how even saying the words makes me hate the stuff.  It’s just that the reasons for that fear and loathing are not based on science, that’s all.

In the scientific communication field, there has been a lot of talk recently about the need to pay closer attention to branding and messaging. “Science’s future lies in its power to inspire, and inspiration does not come from desiccated academic jargon. Time to wise up to the power of the brand.”  (New Scientist Oct 12, 2011).  They’re right…sciency sounding stuff is confusing at best, scary at worst.  When I tell you that enzymatic reactions converting nitrate to nitrites, aided by the introduction of micrococcus bacteria are part of making sausage, or that Sodium Ferrocyanide is a safe food additive, you may well blanch.  We might even write our congressional representatives demanding protection from these awful sounding things.  But will it stop us from buying artisan salumi or nduja at the farmers market? Meh…probably not.

As noted, the choice of words and terms can trigger emotional reactions that may have little to do with the objective scientific data that underpins their usefulness, meaning or safety.  My other favorite current examples include fracking, “the god particle”, and clean coal.  I guarantee you that the person who coined the term “fracking” rues the day.  It just sounds ominous…as possible kin to racking, smacking, cracking and sacking, it just couldn’t be OK to frack, could it?  But “the god particle” is surely great, no?  I mean, don’t we all want to find it?  Finally, folks are clearly starting to pay closer attention to the images these words evoke, no doubt resulting in the cynical Orwellian term, clean coal.  The good people at America’s Power (the coal industry) came up with that one, and I think it’s doomed to fail.  But it points to another aspect of all this…simply branding something in the hopes of shaping our opinions won’t always work.  Just ask the LFTB folks about that.

So going forward, as with all things regarding science, we need to be thoughtful, critical and vigilant.  Are our beliefs around an issue based on the underlying scientific data behind it, or something as simple as a name or the choice of terms to describe it?  And from my personal point of view, how can we invoke the “genius” of the Jon Stewarts of the world to create messages that provide positive motivations to tackle some of our most compelling challenges?  So, what do you believe?

*For the truly curious with way too much free time on their hands, you can read a fascinating summary of the whole thing here.

Science, well sort of...giant radioactive ants, fear, and the Bay Bridge

Gulp …  true confession time.  I have not driven a car over the San Francisco Bay Bridge since sometime in 1985.  This may not be a very remarkable statement other than the fact that during these 27 years I have lived in the Bay Area, on and off, for about 17 of them.  You see, I have a debilitating phobia of bridges. More on this below, but I point it out to simply establish my bona fides as an expert on the topic of fear.

I recently heard fear described as that which we seek to avoid/destroy, while its opposite, passion, is that which we seek to get embrace/protect.  The two have a symbiotic, yin/yang, relationship with elements of both existing within the other to varying degrees.  As we look at our beliefs, particularly those nominally informed by science, I’m struck by the remarkable role that fear/passion plays in shaping them.

As humans, we seek safety, security, the health and well being of ourselves, our families and future generations.  Thus we seek to avoid, we fear, risks or uncertainties that threaten those values.  In fact, our brains are wired to instinctively react to such threats in a rapid subconscious manner.  Probably coming from ancient survival mechanisms, the aptly named “fight or flight” response is ingrained into our being, and a key element of how we function.  There is even some chemistry and biology involved … relax, I won’t (OK , can’t) get too sciency here.  But we’ve all experienced the physical reaction to the release of adrenaline into our bodies…the rapid heart rate, sweaty palms etc.  This stuff is tangible and real.  Just as real is how it affects our belief systems.

One of my favorite examples of this is our fear of…dun dun dun…nuclear radiation (did your palms just moisten?).  So, what came to mind the instant you read the last sentence?  Fukishima, Chernobyl, nuclear bombs, Iran, contaminated waste sites, and giant radioactive ants? …. Probably.  Less likely was life saving medical testing and treatments, carbon free energy, safer food, and space engines.  That’s OK, I get it.  But we have to own up to something here.  The scientific data does not support the level of fear that we have. Some factoids on just one aspect of the issue … average decrease in life expectancy for all exposed atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated to be less than 4 months … fatalities due to the release of radiation of Fukishima, Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry combined, is 0….Chernobyl, around 60.  OK, I know, it’s not that simple, but the point is that the risks posed by nuclear power, and there are indeed risks, need to be viewed in context.  For example, about 500,000 people die annually in the US from diseases triggered by air pollution If we take only 1% of that (low, high? … who knows) and attribute it to coal fired power plants, you are looking at 5000 annual deaths, just in the US.  Now compare that to the nuclear figures … you may get my point, but I’m guessing you will still hold onto any fears you have of the use of nuclear energy, and its use as an alternative to fossil fuels.

Which brings me back to my friend [sic], the Bay Bridge.   As I’ve told folks of my phobia over the years, they often quiz me with questions like, what are you afraid of, what could happen, what is the real risk? These all miss the point, for they assume my fear is based on some rational analysis.  In fact, the exact opposite is at play.  My fear is completely irrational, deeply subconscious and seemingly impervious to all manners of objective analysis or treatment (several shrinks will attest to this).  Now, this is not to suggest that irrational fears are OK, particularly when the consequences of such fears affect more than just the individual. It simply points us to the fact that we need to look much more deeply into the sources of our anxieties.  What are we seeking to flee, what are we seeking to protect, and why?

Science, well sort of....possibilities that create reality

So often, both as individuals and as a society, we look to science for certainty. What does the research tell us, predict, confirm? How can we avoid the possible risks or ensure the potential benefits of any given innovation? In that quest for certainty, we often miss a key point. What science can offer us most is not to give certainty, but rather, create possibility.

In the conversation (I’m consciously rejecting the use of the term “debate”) about human induced climate change, much of the time we hear declarations of certainty from all voices in the “dialog”. Predictions of consequences, whether articulated in temperature increases, sea level rise or socio-political impacts, are questioned. The sheer complexity of the overlapping emergent systems and variables at work make accurate projections impossible.  The daily thrum of Twitter and news feeds alternately alarms and numbs us.  We wring our hands over the feeling that forces aligned against the call for action are slowing needed progress. Governments alternately overreach or refuse to act, and the conversation is being driven by ideological imperatives rather than scientific data.  I often hear the plaintive cries of “If they would just get it!”  However, when I ask folks to describe exactly what it is they want “them” to get and do, I am often met with an uncomfortable silence, or at best half formed demands for unified action, carbon pricing or an imagined post carbon future now.  The point is we are frustrated by where we are, but seem to lack the ability to articulate a cogent vision of where we want to go…..but we’ve been here before.

Not so long ago, another generation faced a future of extreme uncertainty, one also characterized with the possibility, if not likelihood of an impending apocalypse.  It was the cold war.  We rehearsed our first moves after the air raid sirens sounded.  We secretly eyed the civil defense caches of crackers and 50 gallon drums of water hidden under the school auditorium stage, wondering how we were going to open them, and how long they would last.  The media and popular culture were littered with signposts of impending doom…and yet, we also held another parallel vision of the future. One in which we’d be bouncing along on the moon with our dog Astro, wearing cool bubble space helmets, and experiencing the strength of our legs against the low gravity of the lunar surface, bounding ever higher, with the Earth as our backdrop.

On September 12, 1962, President Kennedy gave his now famous speech at Rice University, laying out the case for why we should go to the moon by the end of the decade (You can see it in full length here…a great 17 minute history lesson.) What I find most interesting about it is that at that moment in time we were well behind the Soviet Union in the  “space race”, and we didn’t have the knowledge, materials, systems, technology and resources necessary to accomplish the objective.  However, the creation of the possibility that we might do so, ensured that we did.  There was no data or research predicting the outcome.  We embraced the possible rather than the certain.  And in doing so, we found another vision of the future that allowed us to both cope with and ultimately transcend the apocalypse of the moment.

So, what is the positive vision of the future that we are now offering up to our children?  How are we framing the possibility of the future today with the current apocalyptic challenges before us?  Frankly, I think we are failing miserably.  Too often, even our language seems to portend only negative outcomes…reduce and reuse can lead to or evoke regret, regress, and retreat.  We are asking ourselves to think smaller, safer, simpler…all good outcomes to a point, and certainly attractive if you are already highly educated and secure, but hardly inspirational or aspirational.   The metaphor of a 21st century moon-shot is often invoked to suggest a sense of common purpose and focus that will be needed to overcome the slow creeping horror of climate change.  But this really misses the point.  I don’t think we need to get more organized, I think we need to create a vision, a possibility of wild fun and adventure, full of risk, drama and reward, that our children will embrace.

Jules Verne imagined the possibility of a trip to the moon in 1865, and in less than a century, that possibility came true.  But for the creation of that possibility, one could argue we would never have done it. So, what challenges and dreams can we offer our children today?  What do you believe we should be offering as a compelling possibility for their future?

Note: I must acknowledge Saul Griffith, (who if you don’t know, you should, and can read about here) for posing these questions to me several years ago.  As you can see, I’m still searching for an answer.