While in office, Rep. Ehlers has supported increased funding for science, technology, engineering, and math and helped write a new statement on US science policy in 1998.  In a recent interview in Chemical & Engineering News, Rep. Ehlers discussed the importance of connecting with non-scientists, saying “If you really want to reach the average person, you have to learn to speak about the material and be able to explain it in the terms that the public will understand, and that’s not something that happens very easily.”

As scientists, I think it is important that we educate the public about science and why it is important.  But can this be accomplished as a outside adviser?  Or is it more effective as a policy maker?

Human Embryonic Stem Cells, from "Follow the Money—Russo E "The Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research" PLoS Biology 3(7): e234

A court ruling yesterday has halted federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The case is centered around a federal law which prevents the funding of research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This “Dickey-Wicker Amendment” has been part of the NIH funding since 1996, but since 1999 the government has interpreted the law as only applying to the creation of new cell lines, not the use of cells that are already made available. The case was brought by several groups, but all but two were removed from the case due to not having standing to sue because they weren’t directly harmed by the rule. The remaining plaintffs are Drs. James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, two researchers who work with adult stem cells who argued the additional competition for grants interferes with their work.

This ruling was only a preliminary injunction, meaning the funding is prevented while the judge is hearing the case, and isn’t necessarily the same result that will happen after he has heard evidence during the trial. However based on what I read from the ruling, I think the government lawyers may have a lot of convincing to do for the judge to rule in their favor.

The standards for an injunction to be put in place are 1. that the plaintiffs need to have a reasonable expectation that they could win, and 2. need to show irreparable harm would take place 3. without excessively burdening others affected by the ruling. For the first part the judge decided that there the creation of cell lines and the later use of those lines are all fundamentally the same part of research and Congress clearly meant to prevent funding of all aspects that involve the destruction of human embryos. This interpretation seems to prevent research under both the relaxed standards for funding President Obama put in place, as well as the stricter restrictions that were in place under President Bush. Given that this language has been included in funding bills for over ten years, it seems more reasonable that Congress didn’t object to this amendment not acting as a complete ban on funding embryonic stem cell research.

For the second and third aspects the judge decided that the plaintiffs legitimately argued that the funding of other projects could prevent them from receiving grants necessary for their work, while embryonic stem cell work could continue using private funding. I think the judge seriously underestimated the difficulties that would be associated with finding outside private funding and having to separate work that is funded from different sources. Apparently the NIH has decided this ruling doesn’t affect grants that have been paid out, however 22 grants that were previously funded won’t be eligible for renewal next month and an additional 60 were in the process of being reviewed that have to be set aside. This sudden change in funding situation will have serious consequences for how researcher will have to proceed.Even if private funding is available, it leads to researchers having to duplicate many resources if they still receive government funding for other types of work . In contrast Drs. Sherley and Deisher seem to be much less concretely affected by the potential for additional competition with other types of research. Furthermore, saying that other researchers can just go find private funding for their work with embryonic stem cells seems especially odd since the plaintiffs’ research was still eligible for federal funding and the same reasoning could lead to saying they could use other sources for funding if they don’t receive a grant.

The Obama administration has decided to appeal this injunction to continue being able to fund research. I will be interested in seeing how both that appeal and the final decision turn out.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on July 22nd the selections of six projects that aim to find ways of converting captured carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources into useful products such as fuel, plastics, cement, and fertilizers.  Funded with $106 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -matched with $156 million in private cost-share -today’s selections demonstrate the potential opportunity to use CO2 as an inexpensive raw material that can help reduce carbon dioxide emissions while producing useful by-products that Americans can use.

“These innovative projects convert carbon pollution from a climate threat to an economic resource,” said Secretary Chu. “This is part of our broad commitment to unleash the American innovation machine and build the thriving, clean energy economy of the future.”

See the press release here.

News of this prize was met with enthusiasm and excitement, but what gave it the extra “wow factor” was its debut at the TEDxOilSpill Conference.  If you have not yet heard of TED, I urge you to check out their website.  TED.com is a non-profit organization (started in 1984) dedicated to “Ideas worth spreading.”  Started as a conference to bring together leaders in their respective fields (beginning with technology, entertainment and design), TED has expanded to encompass experts in all fields and move well-beyond the conference setting.

For those individuals who are not selected to attend one of TED’s 3+ annual events (the application process is highly selective and pricey), TED offers a website chock full videos from their conferences (+700 and counting) from years past to present-day.  Their website reads: “Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world.”

A quick perusal brings up well-known names in science such as: UW’s own John Delaney, talking about “Wiring the Ocean”; Clay Skirky, “HowCognitive Surplus Will Change the World”; Carter Emmart, “A 3D Atlas of the Universe”, to name a few.  There are also featured videos by pioneers in economies, politics, policy, art, music, and world health.  The archives are staggering.  And of course, if you aspire to one-day give a TED talk, you’ll have to keep it short.  Talks run about 18-minutes in length and are Powerpoint “lite”.

I urge you to peruse their website, and to listen to talks in areas outside of your realm of expertise.  It is inspiring to see how well the featured speakers use interdisciplinary approaches to communicate to their audiences and to the general public.  And for those of you interested in the progress of the oil spill and the 5^th X Prize, be sure to visit:

http://tedxoilspill.com/

Several recently added TED talks featured on TED.com (2010)

From July 29-31, scientists, hackers, students, patients, and activists will convene to discuss the future of our science/technology paradigm. Topics include: Synthetic Biology, Personal Genomics, Gene Patents, Open Access/Data, the Future of Scientific Publishing and Reputation, Microfinance for Science, DIY Biology, Bio-security, and more.

To start off, I admit I’m not very familiar with current standards, so after reading this report I also took a brief look at the standards of two states relevant to me, Washington and Colorado. While these were chosen fairly arbitrarily, they turned out to be good representatives of the changes the NRC is hoping will be implemented. Washington’s standards were revised last year, and have already incorporated many of the ideas that are being suggested in the new report. On the other hand Colorado’s standards had minor updates most recently in 2007, but are otherwise based on the previous recommendations that were put out in 1995. Seeing these standards after reading the new report and the Washington standards makes clear the need for changes. The Colorado standards are basically a list of various facts about different topics students are expected to know at different times through the course of their education. While these ideas are important aspects to learn, there is little attempt to form connections between the items or put things in context.

In the process of updating it’s recommendations, the NRC panel’s goal was to form the different aspects of science education into “a coherent vision”. One way it did this was by presenting the standards in terms of “Learning Progressions” which describe how later levels would build on the knowledge gained at earlier stages. While this may seem a somewhat superficial aspect of presentation and layout, it was very effective at describing how people are likely to learn these concepts. The Washington standards method of organizing all the different areas by age level was harder to follow and was was even more confusing in the introduction where it outlined the overall standards, but presented them in a reverse order – starting with the complex ideas expected in high school, and moving to the more rudimentary ideas expected from kindergarten and first grade.

The NRC organized it’s report around what it calls three dimensions:

1. Core Disciplinary Ideas – This is where the basic facts of science are described. This section overlaps with an equivalent section in Washington standards and with three of the five Colorado standards for Life Science, Physical Science and Earth and Space Science. However the updates try to avoid the tendency to have content be “a mile wide and an inch deep” as the report describes it. This is exemplified by the lists of concepts in the older Colorado standards, which reach almost 20 ideas for each of the three areas at the high school level, but give these ideas no context. Instead the new standards are organized into a few “Core Ideas” that are key to the different areas. While at first, these concepts seemed a little vague and undefined, when they are flushed out later in the report it seems clearer that very few concepts don’t fit in these categories and it can serve as a framework for learning new concepts both in school, as well as after people finish their formal education. While I might quibble over some of the details, as a starting point it seems reasonably effective.

In addition to the three areas in the Washington and Colorado standards, a unique aspect of the NRC recommendations is to include Engineering and Technology as an additional category of equal focus to the other areas. At first I was somewhat skeptical of this idea, and a little nervous that it could encourage the thinking of science in terms of it’s applications and undervalue basic science. However they seemed to have organized it in a way that I think actually can be effective at countering this attitude, by identifying how a scientific approach is modified for working within the kind of constraints needed for a particular application, while still requiring similar types of thinking. The bigger concern I have now is wondering how big of a shift in school curriculum would be required to include this content.

2. Cross-Cutting Elements – These are ideas are not specific to any particular branch of science, but instead applicable to all forms of science. These ideas were present in a  form in the older Colorado standards, but are much more developed in the newer Washington standards and the NRC recommendations. While the two newer sets of standards treat this category a little differently, I think the Washington standards did a better job than the NRC of presenting these ideas. The Washington standards kept the concept from the Core Ideas dimension of organizing standards under three umbrella ideas that it called Systems, Inquiry and Application. On the other hand a wider range of concepts is described by the NRC.  The Cross-Cutting Elements the NRC identified were:

• Patterns, Similarity and Diversity
• Cause and Effect: mechanism and prediction
• Scale, Proportion and Quantity
• Systems and System Models
• Energy and Matter: flow, cycles and conservation
• Form and Function
• Stability and Change
• Science, Engineering, Technology and Society (which was broken down into further subcategories)

I see the value of these concepts, but the report was less clear in describing how they should be implemented, and by having so many concepts it gets away from the idea presented in dimension 1 of a few key ideas. The NRC report was somewhat lacking in it’s description of the progression of learning these concepts compared to the other two dimensions.

An additional aspect I thought might be of value is cross-cutting concepts that are less abstract, and more content based. There are several areas in the specifics of all the core ideas that could apply to additional fields, for example:

• Use of energy by life connects the the Life and Physical Sciences,
• How evolution has been affected by geologic events connecting Life and Earth Sciences
• How the development of technology has been dependent on basic science, as well as leading to new opportunities for discovery.

I think some of these connecting Core Ideas could have been given a little more prominence to show how science isn’t several independent fields, but interconnected. Though looking at this now, I am thinking at least in some cases this may be more of how these elements should be implemented, rather than needing to be additional ideas to add.

3. Scientific and Engineering Practices – This area was given less explicit treatment in the Washington standards though generally fits within the Inquiry Cross-Cutting Element, but made up a significant part of the two Colorado standards not related to a specific discipline. However the nature of the practices seems to have shifted some in the newer report. The NRC report describes these practices as:

• Asking Questions
• Modeling
• Devising Testable Hypotheses
• Collecting, Analyzing and Interpreting Evidence
• Constructing and Critiquing Arguments
• Communicating and Interpreting Scientific and Technical Texts
• Applying and Using Scientific Knowledge

Again, I got a little bogged down reading through the details of the different categories here, but I think it was more justified in this section, than in dimension 2. One thing I liked about the skill section was it emphasized skills beyond simple data collection and analysis, and drew attention to how the data is integrated into a larger picture and communicated to others. I’ve found these dimensions were generally missing from my K-12 science education, and often even in undergrad curriculum, so it was nice to see it given more prominence here.

An aspect that was good to see in the Washington standards was an explicit connection to the math standards, which were listed as footnotes where ever they might be relevant. While I understand the NRC report focused on the science side, seeing this in the Washington standards served as a good reminder for how connected math and science standards are likely to be when they are actually put into place.

While there were some areas that seemed to be incomplete or need more description (which is to be expected since this is still just a draft), in general I like the direction the new standards seem to be moving. I also think the framework of Core Ideas and Cross-Cutting Elements that was presented could be effective beyond just the K-12 science education, and could be useful for presenting college level course work as well.

The authors contend that the real problem facing American students is a lack of careers in science. The case they make is compelling: Although the number of graduates receiving Ph.D.’s has increased, the number of job opportunities has not kept pace. This trend is particularly noticeable in academia, where young Ph.D.’s spend years as post-docs, with only a small chance of ever landing a permanent position as a professor. Indeed, the average age of a scientist who earns his first independent NIH grant– a huge milestone in the medical science field– has risen from a researcher’s late 20s/early 30s to the ripe old age of 42.

One of the biggest causes indicated in this article is the flood of foreigners who are willing to take post-doc positions. It doesn’t take an economist to realize that a massive increase in labor supply will both eat up opportunities and drive down salaries. Post-doc positions, which were once viewed as prestigious, are now treated as temporary, cheap labor. With such a dismal prospect for career advancement and compensation, it’s no wonder that American students would rather get an MBA or MD… or to forgo higher education altogether.

Alex B. Berezow is a Ph.D. Candidate in Microbiology at the University of Washington.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman described the ban as “overbearing” and said the government does not have evidence to show that all deepwater drilling rigs are unsafe.  He also described the economic damage to the people of the region imposed by ban, concluding “the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction” (lifting the ban).

As scientists, we try to be impartial knowledge seekers.  But how do we weigh evidence against potential economic outcomes?  Results always fall within a confidence interval, and there can be outliers.  How much risk are we willing to accept, both in terms of lives and environmental impact, for economic gain?  As scientists, it is important to consider these questions, as well as the data-based ones.

If you’re interested in reading the decision, it can be found here.

And yet there I was, discussing the environmental impacts, outcomes and tragedies of oil-slicked birds to my relatives.  The first time I was asked about the spill, I stumbled for words.  When my friend asked, “So, how do you feel about the spill?” my first instinct was to say, “I’m horrified, sad, outraged.”  What was I supposed to say?  Truthfully, I had been avoiding reading the news for weeks.  The sight of suffering wildlife, polluted marshlands, and lost livelihoods made my stomach drop.  Of course I was outraged, and so first, came the emotional response.  Not surprisingly, everyone looked at me with blank stares, as if to say, “Well, duh.”

My next approach was to highlight some of the science that I was aware of.  I always threw in a qualifier first, such as, “I study algae, mind you.”  I started by discussing ocean circulation patterns; the possibility of the oil reaching the Atlantic Ocean; the effects on aquaculture; the loss of fish habitat.  I was ad-libbing, learning as I went, and practicing a skill that we often overlook while in graduate school, science communication.   As I continued to visit friends and family, my response became more concise.  But, my audience still wanted something more.  There was an underlying need for hope or some suggestion on how they could help.  Just as they were desperate for information, they also seemed hungry for optimism.

Although I find the Gulf situation extremely upsetting (I don’t expect rainbows and unicorns to appear in the area anytime soon), I forced myself to find something; some sound byte, similar to my phytoplankton 1-liner.  “It was only a matter of time, BP is the unfortunate one; it could have happened to any of them,” I would say, followed by, “Hopefully, this will force us to reconsider our offshore drilling regulations.” This message resonated well with my audience, as they shook their heads ‘yes’.  They also seemed to understand that our relationship to oil and to our environment is extremely fragile, and often taken for granted.  Not only was the science of the spill reaching them, but the consequences, too.  As I drew from the long list of potential impacts, it appeared that everyone was aware of at least 1 tragic consequence: fisheries have been shut down, causing an immense blow to the economy of the Gulf states; 1 of 2 fragile breeding grounds for the threatened blue fin tuna has been tarnished; communities that thrive on tourism have been vacated due to tar balls washing onshore.

The Gulf Oil Spill crosses energy, the environment, policy, and economics with one another, and it serves as an excellent platform for much-needed change through public outreach.  We can’t undo the damage that we have caused in the Gulf, at least not immediately, but we can look to the future and protect what resources we have left.  As scientists, we can educate ourselves on the environmental impacts of the spill, at least enough to provide the public (or our friends and family) with the information they so-desperately seek, as well as with that 1-liner, the small nugget of hope.  It’s not pretty, it is devastating, but sometimes it takes a tragedy to cause the public to reassess its priorities.

Sara Bender is a graduate student studying oceanography at the University of Washington.

For information and insightful blogging on the Gulf Oil Spill:

http://www.nature.org/

http://tedxoilspill.com/expedition/

http://deepseanews.com/

The tone of the film was set in the opening credits showing Joseph Weizenbaum, who was involved in the early development of computers and artificial intelligence, trying to start up his laptop and play some music, saying “you plug it in and it works … except when it doesn’t”. Most of the film went back and forth between researchers explaining their work and how it will improve society, with Weizenbaum coming in to argue that a lot of the benefits are overstated and too few people are thinking about the negative costs. This contrast is particularly striking in the scenes with Ray Kurzweil, about whom it would be an understatement to say he is optimistic about the potential for technology to improve humanity.

I think the film did a good job of presenting the importance for scientists to consider the impact of the work on society. Weizenbaum brought up the fact that when students would come to him for advice about thesis projects he would tell them to imagine being able to push a button to reverse all the work they had done. If a student thought they would want to be able to have that button, then they shouldn’t work on that project. Weizenbaum himself ultimately decided he didn’t want to be involved in the kind of research that was being done and finished his career teaching mathematics instead of computer science. Similarly, in the Q and A afterwards the director told how off-camera one of the researchers told him he couldn’t think too much about the long-term effects of his research, since then he wouldn’t be able to do it. I did wonder if that comment was being misinterpreted, since the director seemed to imply the researcher thought the consequences weren’t good. When I heard Weizenbaum’s advice about the button, I also thought that many people wouldn’t be able to do research if they thought that way; not because we think we’d regret doing the work, but because there are so many unknowns to take into account. Just considering all the possibilities would take so much work that it wouldn’t be possible to actually do the research.

I also saw what might have been a bit of disconnect when the director said that, other than Kurzweil, few of the researchers seemed to have really thought through the philosophical implications of their work. While it may have been edited to show the times they did discuss those issues, I thought several of them seemed well aware of the issues their work could bring about. However they also were often discussing it in terms of the inherent good of learning about how intelligence works. This valuing of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something I see commonly in my fellow scientists, but often is less recognized by non-scientists – such as the director.

In general Plug and Pray brought up some interesting ideas that I’m still thinking about almost a week later. I’d definitely say it’s worth people trying to track down if it shows near you or once it comes out on DVD.