Now along comes Nature[1], a
credible journal, entering the fray of US politics and collecting some
"scientists" and discussing the "fear" in science about the
new Administration. I guess the folks who control "Left Wing Speak",
I now believe there are such people, things really don't happen simultaneously,
have selected the operative opposition phrase as "fear". Oh, yes, and
Nature calls these folks "nine experts". So, I guess we better take
their word ex cathedra, got that one folks. But remember, Science is supposed
to be all questioning, seeking truth. Yet for Nature and these experts, we
should just take their word for it. Not one of them seems in my opinion to
present a single fact, but after all they are "experts'.
First the comment:
Then there’s the US REGROW Act. This seeks to lower
standards for cell therapy products — such as stem-cell treatments — and has
been stalled in a Senate committee since this spring. Major scientific groups
have issued statements opposing the act, including the International Society
for Stem Cell Research, the International Society for Cellular Therapy, and the
Alliance for Regenerative Medicine. The bill’s prospects had seemed grim.
Substantive amendments in recent months had, for instance, removed an alarming
call for Congress to prohibit the FDA from requiring phase III clinical trials,
typically the final hurdle for therapies to be approved for market for most
investigational cell therapy products. Now, under a Republican-dominated
government, its dim chances seem to have brightened.
"seem" is the operative phrase. "seem"
to whom and based upon what evidence? Oops, I am speaking like a scientist
about a scientist. I am only a humble engineer, with a few other areas of
expertise, but alas, this is an "expert".
Then we have:
Clean-energy projects generate more jobs than do the coal
and natural-gas sectors. With solar and wind projects creating energy prices
between 2.5 and 4 ¢ per kilowatt-hour, the economic case is compelling — as is
the argument for these technologies being the fastest way to provide energy
access to the global poor, boosting their economic opportunities and
capacity. The economic benefits of clean
energy are even more profound if combined with domestic manufacturing of
electric vehicles, which bring new research growth to the high-tech sector.
Renewable-energy options, in some cases supported by natural gas, are a faster
route out of energy and economic poverty than are coal-energy projects.
Here we have another set of statements that make no sense.
2.5 to 4 cents per KWh? Is that at the wind farm output point? What is the
basis for that number? Many of these units are idle all too frequently. They
are unreliable and frankly are both environmental hazards, ever seen all the
dead birds, and ugly as sin. But the clincher is the above-mentioned cost. It
has yet to be proven in on a national basis. One may fine an installation here
and there but no when looking at a totality.
Now for something I spent time on when in Washington. They
state:
I have two concerns about defence policy. First, I’m not
optimistic that the White House will understand the negative humanitarian and
strategic consequences posed by lethal autonomous weapons systems. The Obama
administration took the views of the scientific community seriously in
formulating foreign and military policy. Secondly, I fear for the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, one of the pillars of global nuclear non-proliferation policy. Trump has disparaged the Iran nuclear
agreement to limit that country's nuclear programme; the deal is widely
supported by arms-control experts. He has said that he has no objection to
allowing several countries in Asia and the Middle East to have nuclear weapons.
He has announced his intention to retaliate with nuclear weapons against a
terrorist attack by ISIS (where, exactly, would he detonate them?).
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, LAWP, are drone that
target people and then just go and wo whatever. Frankly that is wrong and
subject to substantial review. So, put that aside. However, on the nuclear
side, nuclear weapons are world ending, period. I spent years on CTBT
discussions and years in and out of Russia. We both can agree on that. The
problem however is Iran and North Korea, neither a signatory to the
aforementioned agreement. So why mention it. Perhaps a poor rhetorical argument
but easily rejected. Iran and its agreement are separate from a CTBT set of
agreements. Russia and china know what the consequences. India and Pakistan
should but we frankly should be concerned about Pakistan. But the real issue is
Iran and North Korea. North Korea should be China's problem. If they want good
trade deals, then resolve that issue now. Iran is now our issue. We broke it
and now we own it.
Now for the best one:
Trump’s success is the crescendo of a long devaluation of
the Enlightenment idea that facts are the rightful basis of action. Reason
itself is under fire. This mistrust of expertise is a serious threat to the
sciences and the humanities. Science is in the business of making knowledge.
History is founded on the principle that informed reflection is superior to
ignorance. Devaluing evidence and manufacturing doubt can be a powerful
strategy — as climate-change deniers and the tobacco industry have shown. Their
push for short-term gain threatens our health and environment. The history of
science, broadly construed, must shoulder some of the blame. Perhaps the
central insight of my field in the past 40 years is that facts are socially
constructed. Truth has a social history. But even the most extreme social
constructionists still value expertise; they are not the ones trying to destroy
the fabric of reality. This subtlety has been lost on the wider public, and to
some extent on scientists. The rift between the arts and sciences — the pillars
of the university — now threatens all who value reason.
The Enlightenment. A great deal has been written on the
subject and our Constitution is based upon the ideas that the movement
engendered. Especially the Scottish Enlightenment. "reason itself is under
fire". Really? What is the basis for your statement? That is logic and
logic precede science. In fact, Galen insisted that physicians be trained in
logic before taking on what little science we know about the human body. "truth
is a social history" What does that mean? Truth is distinct from
falsehood. Is it true that the area of a circle is πr2? Yes, but not just by definition.
Truth is more that social history, it is what is done in science. It is true
that genes generate RNA and that RNA generates proteins. It is true that
proteins can control a lot of things. But so, can methylation, acetylation, and
other intermediaries. The simplicity of a Watson and Crick, their
"truth" has evolved. Science is ever evolving. Cancer is genetic, it
is also epigenetic. Both are true, neither are social history.
So, what should we fear? "Fear itself?" That
seemed adequate for FDR. And he was a Democrat.
Posts
