Abuses of Science Political Cartoon Contest 345
AngryNick writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists has announced a cartoon contest for amateur and professional artists.
'The absurdity of political interference in science is fertile ground for satire,' said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. 'We hope these contests encourage amateur and professional cartoonists alike to express concern--through humor and art--about the impact of the abuse of science on our safety, health and environment.'
A celebrity judge panel will select twelve finalists and the public will then choose the Grand Prize winner. The winner will receive a host of prizes, including $500 and an all-expenses-paid trip to have lunch with the celebrity judge of his or her choice.
You can read Contest details, sample topics and the list of celebrity judges."
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No Politics? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no they were not, although there seem to be many poorly educated people in the US who think they were.
Hitler took over a small party which started his rise to power, and this party had socialist elements in it. But nothing Nazis did after getting into power had anything to do with socialism.
Slave labour has nothing to do with socialism.
Re:It's not a religion 'till someone dies. (Score:4, Informative)
Even the New York Times [nytimes.com] has begun to accept the truth on this.
What is worse is that the philisophical routes of this ban were explicitly anti-human. Rachel Carson barely mentioned any negative impact on humans in 'Silent Spring'. Certainly, there were no such studies at the time (and studies since then have shown 0 ill effects to humans). Carson's main complaint was that DDT weakened the shells of bird eggs, thereby disrupting their cycle. This too has been disproven.
So, we have essentially sacrificed the lives of millions of humans in the name of speculation regarding the potential damage to birds! If that's not religion, I don't know what is.
Fooling oneself (Score:4, Informative)
For all this discussion has focused on the "debate" about global warming, if you think that political interference is limited to environmental science, you're missing a very, very big picture.
Let me start off by saying that scientific advancement is not a left-right issue, and should never be viewed through the narrow prism of party politics. However, the United States has fallen into a (man-made) rut of EVERYTHING being split down partisan lines (even national security, even voting integrity, even scientific research) so that is the playing field we are on, whether we like it or not. Wedge politics infect every issue now.
Under this administration, the religious right has exerted undue influence over decisions ranging from:
(source article for that list, a must-read [glamour.com])
And without going on a daylong linkhunt, they are passing bad information about condom effectiveness, intimidating non-profit organizations which do not toe the party line on reproductive issues, and denying USAID funds to overseas orgs which even mention abortion, or distribute condoms [wikipedia.org] as part of family planning efforts. (Imagine sending $15B to Africa to fight AIDS without distributing or even even mentioning condoms! Talk about throwing good money away...It's like fighting fires without water, it's that foolish.)
And don't even let's discuss the bi-partisan support for embryonic stem cell research which has been effectively neutered under this administration. Or the medical expertise of Dr. Bill Frist in the case of a braindead woman he never examined [washingtonpost.com], or his patently absurd claim that AIDS may be transmitted via tears and sweat [planetwire.org].
Sadly, I could document this sort of war on objective science all day, but I think I've made my point. It infests the policy debate over far more than global warming, and if you think there's no difference between the parties on this, you're sadly, tragically mistaken.
Predictions that come true (Score:1, Informative)
If evolution occured by survival of the fittest, you would expect something like the genetic method of inheritence (which was later found) and that genetic changes and similarities would match the pace of the fossil record. This is almost universally true. So predictions have matched what was found.
When a new small frog is found in the jungle with bright colors that make it stand out, evolution would predict that it has a defense mechanism. Such animals have been found to be poisonous.
A classic was a madagascar flower that was 18" deep. At the time, it was mentioned to Darwin as a flaw in evolution -> how could something so strange have evolved, it couldn't have a purpose. Darwin replied that there must be a moth with an 18" probuscus that could drink the nectar of the flower. A few years ago someone finally filmed the moth and proved Darwin's prediction correct.
The power of selection can explain how the immune system can fuction without intelligence.
When something like the high occurrence of sickel cell anemia or cystic fibrosis is found, we conclude that there must be an evolutionary advantage somewhere. This was found in resistance to diseases by heterozygous individuals.
There are many more. Like the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects and that it can be controlled by having sacrifice crops that are left to create a population without the selected pressure. Or disease virulence. Here's one for the future. Ebola is too deadly to humans to spread through them effectively. Therefore, it must exist in another host or it would become extinct. I'll bet on them finding one.
Re:It's not a religion 'till someone dies. (Score:5, Informative)
This posting continues to repeat common distortions and false dichotomies about DDT, malaria, and the environment.
The use of DDT to prevent malaria is not an environmental issue. The amounts used are tiny when compared to what was used in agriculture.
Millions of tons of DDT were applied agriculturally, resulting in the wide-spreed environmental contamination and non-consented exposure of humans. This also resulted in the evolution of strains of DDT-resistant mosquitoes, making DDT less effective in malaria control.
A large about of the agricultural use in developed countries was to produce cheaper cotton. Yet this misuse that lead to the ban on the agricultural never seems to be criticized by the so-called DDT defenders.
The weakening of egg shells of birds by the DDT metabolite DDE has not been disproved.
The implication that individuals who are concerned about the environment and other species are not concerned about people in third world countries. There are extremists in every corner, but as a rule, no evidence ever presented to back this up.
Personally, I have had malaria while in a developing country, with out access to western medical facilities. I have a greater appreciation than most of the direct affects of malaria.
Re:It's not a religion 'till someone dies. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, most bacteria resistant to antibiotics became that way through no small part by patient non-compliance. The too many people see the directions to finish all the medication in the bottle, but pay it no heed. Instead, they stop taking their prescriptions when they feel better. Unfortunately, feeling better and being infection free are two very different conditions. When a person feels better it is likely that that person just has a level of infection that has no ill effect on the body. Unfortunately, since those bacteria have been exposed the longest to the antibiotic they are more likely to contain genetic mutations indicative of resistance. Perhaps continued treatment could have provided sufficient dosage to kill even these bacteria, but the premature cessation now gives that mutation a chance to strengthen in subsequent generations.
Unfortunately, those who stop taking their medications early do so for what they feel are good reasons, and, being ignorant of the negative effects, they don't see how their reasons don't out weigh the negative. For example, some people stop when they feel better because they think they'll save money. Next time they get sick they believe they can just use their leftovers. Save money not only at the pharmacy but also by doing away with the need for a visit to the doctor. Obviously, the problems here are: 1. most "illnesses" are caused by a virus, thus their leftovers will not help an ounce, and 2. they are contributing to the resistance of bacteria at least twice--first when they fail to finish their prescribed medicine when infected, and secondly they take another abbreviated treatment increasing the chance of resistance in the multiple bacterium inhabiting their bodies. The long-term ramifications of these actions will likely only increase their total medical expense, thus is counter-productive in more than one one.
I've heard other reasons for stopping treatment early. For example, some people feel once they feel better they should stop taking a prescription because they feel the need to limit their exposure to a drug to avoid any ill effects it may have on their body, and even people who stop because they think overuse causing resistances can be stopped by using the drug for a shorter period of time. Both of these reasons have no more effect than to increase the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and are thus counterproductive to their underlying aims--decreasing negative effects on the body and stopping the development. Such ideas would be like two people dying in the Arctic from hypothermia even though they had matches and plenty of wood both of whom stop trying to make a fire after several failed attempts--one because he wished to decrease the chance he'd burn his fingers with the matches, and the other because he wanted make sure he didn't run out of matches. In this situation both will continue to get colder and, if they happen to abandon their original reasonings, will find their half dead fingers have an even tougher time lighting the matches.
Since this is a thread about political interference in science, I should point out that the only solution to this problem is education. People need to be educated about the consequences of their actions; the absence of this education I would lay blame to those who should be safe guarding the public welfare, the government. Simply adding this material to the required syllabus for health classes in public schools would help, but something more would need to be done as many people would forget much of what they learned in such situations. Some other forms of consistent reminders (PSA's perhaps, or maybe information in freely distributed health magazines subsidized by the government) would really be necessary to get the point across. I'm sure there is someone out there intelligent enough to come up with an intervention to educate the public utilizing all this modern technology we have. Of course the only way to stop bacterial resistance is to not use the medications at all, which, in my opinion, is just as idiotic, if not more, than any of the above described behaviors. The best we can do is use the drugs to lessen suffering and try to slow the development of any resistance.
Re:My winning entry (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the "celebrity judges" are famous political cartoonists. Even I have heard of Clay Bennett, and I'm not American, so "celebrity" seems an appropriate term.