Category: Science Policy

This Is Not Polite Dinner Conversation

Environment, Public Perceptions, Science Policy

Francis and I have been having the most ridiculous conversations over dinner. Apparently we both favor talking about the things you aren’t supposed to talk about like religion, abortion, politics, and even global warming. I guess we are just getting a feel for each other and what we think and believe. Although I have a tendency to provide my opinions about these topics freely, which I suppose thats why getting my own voice out of my reporting was a challenge for me when I first started writing.

But on the topic of global warming, she made a fairly decent argument for why she doesn’t believe in global warming specifically (she does believe in climate change) based on the geologic record of cooling and warming trends, but she is a geologist after all. On the opposing side, I think I also made a good argument in favor of global warming and climate change. In the end it was a respectful parting of opinions, which when you share a small apartment is probably best.

This article in the New York Times reminded me of our global warming conversation, because I think it is another scientific finding that provides evidence in favor of global warming. Extreme heat bleaches coral, and threat is seen by Justin Gillis reports on the mass death of coral reefs due to high water temperatures.

According to the article, with the rising temperatures the coral are far more sensitive, so any other slight disturbance in their environment can send them right over the edge, causing them to lose their color killing the organisms that rely of them. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) scientists believe that 2010 will rival 1998 as the hottest year on record, and probably the most damaging to coral. Not that you can just accept everything NOAA says, but I do think that the article presents a concise and logical argument in favor of a warming trend and its negative affects of coral reefs.

Crackdown on Antibiotics for Animals

Environment, Good Writing, Government Regulations, Science Policy,

I think the New York Times’ Eric Eckholm did a really good job with the article US Meat Farmers Brace for Limits on Antibiotics. As a standard practice farmers in the US give healthy animals antibiotics to make sure that they stay healthy, and to help them grow faster. I do understand the economic value of such a practice, those animals are those farmers livelihood and if they can do anything to safe guard against losing their investment in those animals I see why they would do it. HOWEVER, there is a serious impact to the environment and to public health by giving healthy animals antibiotics.

I like Eckholm’s article because he’s clear in the way he explains the new components of the story (that the FDA is considering stricter regulations on the use of antibiotics in animals, and that such actions are gaining popularity in Congress). But he also provides the background and context necessary to understand both the farmer’s point of view, and the science behind the call to end the use of antibiotics in animals because of their detrimental affects on humans.

The article also has a really nice lead by taking the story down to the level of a single pig farmer and his experience using antibiotics in his healthy animals. It imparts a literary aspect of story telling that I admire in a hard news story. I think its a good example of a writer going beyond the hard news angle and giving some really nice and necessary context to the story.

On a different, but similar, note for those of you who have never seen the Meatrix you should watch it.  I love it and I think its a great way to talk about the use of antibiotics and other issue facing the meat industry (as long as you aren’t a farmer).

Another Chapter on Stem Cells

Government Regulations, Science Policy,

More news today about the controversy over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated the ability of federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research, while it takes more time to review the Obama Administration’s appeal of an earlier court decision banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The issue just seems to go round-and-round.

Coverage of the court’s new decision:
The New York Times: Appeals Court Ends Ban on Stem Cell Financing, for Now
The BBC: Court delays ban on federal funds for US stem cell work
The Washington Post: Stem cell funding gets reprieve
The Associated Press (In The LA Times): Court allows funding of embryonic stem cell research for now, but projects still remain uncertain

Communicating Uncertainty: The Issue of BPA

Public Perceptions, Science Policy,

The New York Times article by Denise Grady, “In Feast of Data on BPA Plastic, No Final Answer” brings up some interesting issues not only on BPA plastic itself, but also on communicating science and how “experts” can become mistrusted when, to the public, the “facts” seem to constantly change.

Bisphenol-A, more commonly called BPA, is a chemical found in some plastics. For over a decade researchers have had inconclusive findings with regard to whether or not it is safe to be exposed to BPA (or in what quantities, in what forms, etc.) yet, most people are constantly exposed to it from plastic bottles, and other products. BPA is a public health concern because the chemical has been shown in studies on lab animals to mimic estrogen, which makes the chemical an endocrine disruptor.
Whether or not exposure to BPA causes harm to humans is still up for debate, and has become a hot topic for researchers, activists, parents, and politicians. Grady’s article does a good job explaining how it is possible for researchers to come up with different results from identical studies (causing all the confusion) but still be good scientists. Research at its core is based on searching for answers, sometimes the answers are elusive, but that doesn’t make the researchers inept. Even in the face of public outcry and demands for answers that won’t seem to come.
I like Grady’s article because I think she does a really good job going through the history of the BPA issue, showing what findings are new and relevant, and explaining the holdups and problems that have caused different research findings. Overall, I think the article is a good example of science journalism, and how to strip down an issue to simplify it, while building it up at the same time to give the audience all of the information they need to understand the topic.

Top Ten Invasive Species

Environment, Science Policy

My mom (who gets all of her news from AOL, we’ll forgive her though) sent me this article about the top ten invasive species in the United States. The species were ranked based on the financial impact they have on the United States each year, but I think invasive species are interesting because of the environmental questions they raise.

What constitutes a truly natural environment?
Are all invasive species bad?
How do ecosystems interplay with each other?
How do humans affect wildlife through other organisms?
What kind of legacy has the presence of humans left the world?

Things to think about, if you like that sort of thing.