RWP was born in Manchester, in the north of England, in the late 1950s, so he is very old. He really liked the north of England, which by 1965 was hip and had three TV channels, and where he went to a coed school. His parents, for reasons best known to themselves, then yanked him away, to Belfast and then Dublin, which had one TV channel that started up at 6 pm with the Angelus (Catholic call to prayer). He also had to go to an all boys school, where he realized he really missed girls. This probably let him focus on schoolwork, though, and at age 19, after he had finished college, he set off for America, where he still resides. He has a bachelors degree in biochemistry and a Ph.D. from Harvard in biophysics, and has lived also in Mainz, Germany, Setauket NY, and Richland WA. He currently divides his time between Nebraska, Rosslyn VA, and Florida.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Shark jumped.

The Leavenworth St. Blog ("the talk of Nebraska politics") has always had a decidedly Republican slant (disclosure; I've written for it). But the blogmaster, Jerry Kratochvil (who lives in Kansas, by the way) seems to have gone entirely off the rails, in his zeal to corral state GOP members into the Donald Trump camp, and is launching a series of hysterical attacks on Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse.

Todays' little effusion is titled "Sasse PR effort edits OWH story, fails to include apology". Of course, there is no evidence anyone associated with Sasse edited the Omaha World Herald story -- no journalist or editor would permit that. The only evidence anything at all changed in the article is the print headline is different from the original online edition headline. I'm sure that was the work of an editor. I'd bet a thousand dollars it was an OWH editor, and not a member of Sasse's staff. Selectively quoting from newspaper stories is what every politician does.

This follows yesterday's equally hysterically titled "Sasse trashes Nebraska Republicans". The offending statement was that he said was he thought NEGOP delegates "are not necessarily representative of what most Americans think and what most Nebraskans think"

According to Kratochvil,"A more tone-deaf and insulting statement has probably never been uttered in Nebraska politics.". On the contrary, it's a statement of the bloody obvious. The Nebraska GOP is representative mostly of Americans and Nebraskans who avoid thinking.

Seriously, get a grip, and try to make sure it's on reality.

Meanwhile, last weekend, the NEGOP has a chance to vote on the following resolution

Be it resolved that the Nebraska Republican Party strongly opposes all degrading remarks towards women, minorities and other individuals by Republican elected office holders or party officials, including candidates for President of the United States, because such rhetoric tarnishes the GOP’s legacy as the party of Lincoln, alienates millions of Americans, and jeopardizes Republican majorities in the Nebraska Legislature, the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate.

A more motherhood-and-apple-pie statement I can't think of. Who could possibly be against "degrading remarks towards women and minorities". Oh, yeah, the NEGOP was. Shamefully, they tabled it.

And then, of all things, Kratochvil said of the resolution on Monday "But other delegates saw it for what it was: a political IED. Improvised Explosive Device." No, Jerry. If a statement that 90% of Americans would likely sign on to is an IED, then you don't know what an IED is.

The NEGOP were so afraid of offending the obnoxious jackass who has hijacked the nomination process, they voted down a statement that called for civility in very general terms. That's shameful. And it's a shame what was once a useful political blog is now so warped that one has to fact-check everything in it. It appears the crudeness and mendaciousness of Donald Trump has now rubbed off on "the talk of Nebraska politics".

Sunday, May 8, 2016

What has liberal bias in academe cost scholarship?

The common observation that conservatives are heavly excluded from academe has sometimes been answered with the claim that scholarship has not suffered from a lack of conservative viewpoints. This was most recently advanced by Jonathan Katz.

Katz is evidently unaware of Jonathan Haidt's writing on the subject. His most recent piece on the exclusion of conservatives from social psychology speaks far better to his field than I, an outsider, ever could. He identifies several problems with this, including

  • Confirmation bias
    leading to widely-accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions (see, e.g., the three risk points discussed previously)
  • Negative attitudes regarding conservatives can produce a psychological science that mischaracterizes their traits and attributes.
  • Researchers may concentrate on topics that validate the liberal progress narrative and avoid topics that contest that narrative.
  • Liberal values and assumptions can become embedded into theory and method.
In my own hard-science field, liberal assumptions dramatically undercut the funding and support for pure science, and promote the exploration of areas in which the Left have an interest. Examples:
  • In chemistry and materials science, liberal priorities of developing renewable energy has grossly distorted the funding process, to the extent that even fairly unlikely avenues to solar power are pursued, while other important areas of research go unexplored, and while fundamental scientific research often can only be done by piggybacking it on an applied science project.
  • In biology/health science, vast amounts of money and effort are poured into projects whose purpose is to identify mostly implausible hypotheses linking common commercial chemicals with health problems. Particularly egregious has been the witchhunt against bisphenol-A. I challenge any physical scientist to look at some of the seminal papers about xenestrogens. He/she will be appalled at the shoddiness of the research; some of the results actually contradict the fundamental laws of chemical kinetics, for example.
  • In agricultural science, research on the beneficial effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide have been discouraged or downplayed.
  • In climate science, even academics who do not question the fundamental basis of climate change have been attacked and even subpoenaed by Congressional liberals, because of contentions that the effects of anthropogenic global warming on extreme events, for example, have been exaggerated, and cannot be detected in properly corrected data. Most egregious example: Roger Pielke Jr. was essentially forced out of the field for his heterodoxy.
  • Research on the genetic and molecular basis of the large effects heredity has on intelligence has been almost abandoned in the US, out of fears of encouraging eugenicists and racists. This hurts our understanding of the brain.
  • Larry Summers was forced out of Harvard for simply contending that the underrepresentation of women in certain fields might not be entirely due to sexist discrimination. Of course, most of the science actually backs Larry up. There is tons of research on sex differences and how they affect men's and women's interests and choices. Steven Pinker has written volubly on the subject.
  • At NSF, the entire proposal process has been subordinated to social engineering. Now fully half of a proposal has to deal not with the science but what are euphemistically called 'broader impacts', which include shibboleths of pushing more women and minorities into STEM fields

Katz's discounting of all of this is puzzling. Of course, he's a liberal pundit; unlike those of us in academia, he has no obligation to be untendentious. But let me just note he is in no better a position discounting bias against conservatives than Southern Democrats were in discounting the effects of racial bias.

(Edit) Jonathan Haidt has another essay in praise of Nick Kristof here.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Victimology and its enemies.

Esther Cepeda wrote a rather remarkable column attacking a fellow editorial writer, Kevin Williamson. Cepeda is a "Latina opinion journalist" for the WaPo. Williamson, if you're unfamiliar with him, is a simply terrific writer, far better than Cepeda (or pretty much anyone else). But what's interesting is how this exchange illustrates the diametrically opposite world views of the left and the right.

Cepeda takes exception to Williamson's characterization of poor whites:

[B]asically, all this kerfuffle about working-class whites being angry enough to buy into Trump's rhetoric because globalization has destroyed decent-paying factory jobs is beside the point. Williamson thinks these losers should just get off their butts and go elsewhere to find jobs since wanting work in their own communities "is the indulgence of absurd sentimentality." Moreover, neither globalization nor immigration is to blame for ruining the quality-of-life and life expectancies of poor white people -- "nobody did this to them. They failed themselves," writes Williamson, noting that this conclusion comes "if you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy -- which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog." ... Williamson continues: "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. ... The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn't analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul."
Cepeda instantly casts this into the mold of victimization.

If Williamson's high-profile treatment of poor whites as drug-addicted mongrels whose communities deserve to die isn't a rallying cry for reaching across ethnic and racial boundaries to coalesce politically around the issues of elitism, poverty and lack of opportunity, I don't know what is.

Well, no it isn't. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings." It's tough to be born poor; that doesn't make it a good idea to procreate children out of wedlock, spend your day fishing, and acquire a meth or oxycodone habit. Williamson is granting poor whites what Cepeda would deny them: agency. They can defer making babies until they can afford them; they can decline to make themselves addicts; most importantly, if where they live has no opportunities, they can move somewhere else that does. That some of them do not do these things is a choice on their part. And they're dying young, as a result.

Interestingly, a very similar observation about white men in economically depressed areas was made by Hanna Rosin, a feminist writer for the New Republic, in 'The End of Men'. (Ignore the clickbait title; it's a good book.) She pointed out that men in towns from which industry has moved out are basically useless. They can make babies, but they can't support them. Women in these places have been able to find a niche in the service economy -- sometimes two niches; they often work two jobs. But even thought women are the entire support of the household, the men refuse to do what stay-at-home wives previously did; do the chores. This comparative inflexibility, argues Rosin, is the principal problem these men have. They are frozen in place, pledged to a lifestyle that disappeared 50 years ago. Williamson would probably add that they could also move out of town to find a job.

So now Cepeda wants to add a new group to the class of people whose life sucks and it's somebody else's fault. And Williamson refuses, holding middle aged white men (like him, and me) to normal standards of personal responsibility.

The real question is; what percentage of the population can be classified as 'victims' before society falls apart?

Friday, January 29, 2016

Preserve us from scienceiness and science fanbois.

This year's SJW disinvitation season got off with a bang this week, as some outfit called NECSS (Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism) removed Richard Dawkins from their speaker list for the vile heresy of reweeting a link to a video that mocked feminists (and was spot on, IMHO). In the grand scheme of things, no big deal; I expect Dawkins turns down more invitations than he accepts, and it's entirely their loss. Dawkins may well the best expositor of science we have; for example, I still consider The Selfish Gene, which I read nearly 40 years ago, to have laid out the framework of how I look at biology.

Out of curiosity, though, i decided to look up what NECSS is. And, sadly, it appears to be a fanboi conference (what's the gender neutral version of fanboi?), dispensing what I call scienceiness, which bears the same relationship to science that truthiness bears to truth. One clue is that they don't actually have many working scientists as speakers. The two headliners are now Richard Wiseman, a 'psychologist and magician', and Bill Nye, the 'Science Guy' with a bachelor's degree in engineering whose schtick got stale at least a decade ago. As regular speakers, just working alphabetically, we have

  • 'physicist' who's published one paper in 3 years, on protein crystalization of all things
  • a postdoc with an alarmingly sparse record
  • a lawyer
  • a woman with a legit. Ph.D. in physics who calls herself 'The Science Babe' (her appraisal of her own babeliness is a bit off, IMHO) but who seems to work on investment analysis and to have exactly one science paper to her credit.
  • an 'Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Administration at CSU Dominguez Hills'.
  • some guy with a podcast
  • ...
You get the picture. This is a conference not for scientists, but for posers Who Fucking Love Science; people who want to borrow science's apparently invincible cloak of 'objectivity' to pursue goals that really aren't scientific, and in most cases without the fuss and muss of having to pass second-semester calculus.

And while we're on the subject of the awful I fucking love science, they have an editorial this morning about sexism in astronomy. Now, actually, I have no idea how much sexism there is an astronomy, though there have been a couple of scandals recently, but it really annoys me when astronomy is taken as representative of science as a whole. And the editorial, which calls for 'a reboot of science', whatever that means, is written by an adjunct in sociology at a down-under dump called Swinburne University of Technology (no, I never heard of it either). The crescendo...

Similarly, science cannot reach its full potential without diversity, and diversity cannot flourish in a culture of racism, discrimination and fear. Research excellence cannot happen without rebooting science culture. The rest of us are ready for change. Are you?
That's all very high-minded, but is it actually true? Just the most obvious example: the magnificent intellectual edifice of modern physics was created by a group of almost entirely white, almost entirely male, mostly German (or teutonophone) physicists. A very undiverse bunch indeed. There really isn't much actual evidence 'diversity', by the trendy definition, has increased the rate of scientific progress. And, of course, this woman is a sociologist; she has absolutely no first-hand knowledge of 'science culture'; I bet she doesn't know how to reboot her iPhone. And as for the 'us'; who are 'us', exactly?

Most scientists don't get involved in this sort of thing, because they regard it as a waste of time. I do, because I'm argumentative and easily annoyed. But it's really time we started standing up to this sort of dreck. There are compelling reasons to give everyone equal opportunity in science, and to stamp out some of the most obnoxious behavior of (a few) scientists; but the idea we can't do science without some specified quotas of the appropriate victim groups is pure idiocy.

Friday, January 1, 2016

How, despite the FDA's best efforts, I found out I probably won't get Alzheimer's

Apolipoprotein E (APOE) is a curious protein. It's made in the liver, and transports lipoproteins, fat soluble vitamins like A and D, and cholesterol into the lymph system and thence to the blood. It was implicated in various conditions that cause hypercholesterolemia, but then, surprisingly, was found to be a major predictor of Alzheimer's disease. In brief, people with two copies of the normal APOE gene (APOE-e3) are relatively unlikely to get Alzheimers, but people with one copy of the APOE-e4 variant have somewhere between a 1.5 fold and 3 fold increased risk of the disease, and people with two copies of APOE-e4 have a 20 - 30 fold increased chance. There's also a APOE-e2 variant that actually further reduces one's chances of Alzheimer's. Why, no one knows. APOE-e4 differs from APOE-e3 in a single amino acid (e4(Arg 112 Cys)e3, if you care), and ultimately in a single base-pair difference in the gene, a so called single-nucleotide polymorphism or SNP. While genes undoubtedly have a substantial influence on whether we develop a whole host of diseases, APOE-e4 is, so far, unique, in that a single base switch causes such a huge effect. There are, of course, all sorts of other mutations that cause particular genetic diseases, but APOE-e4 is by far and away the commonest.

About 6 months ago, I received an email from a close relative, telling me they had done a 23andme analysis, in the UK, and found they had a single copy of e4. I was able to reassure my relative that a single copy of e4 isn't that dangerous, and that one could easily reduce the chances of Alzheimer's back to average with some lifestyle changes. So it's useful information to have. I was however worried; both my mother and her mother died after prolonged and agonizing (for the family) dementia, and I could conceivably have double-e4. So I decided to get tested. And found out -- nothing.

This is because two years ago the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that is supposed to protect us from noxious foods and drugs, but in practice protects us from access to health information and cheap pharmaceuticals, told 23andme they couldn't give out health information without approval by the agency. So now 23andme will tell you if you carry genes for various rare conditions, but they aren't allowed to tell you if you have APOE-e4. Fortunately, I have a Ph.D. in biophysics, considered doing my Ph.D. with Wally Gilbert, who invented gene sequencing, and have taught courses on molecular phylogenetics. It wasn't hard to look up the chromosomal location of the APOE gene and simply read the sequence. And, after about 20 minutes of tedium, I found out what 23andme were forbidden to tell me; that I have two copies of APOE-e3 and thus have a pretty low risk of Alzheimer's. Good news, no? In fact, a friend then told me I could simply send the raw DNA sequence information to a site called, and for $5 they'd deliver a report about a large number of polymorphisms that affect human health, though none as directly as APOE-e3. So I've found out I probably have a somewhat elevated risk of heart disease and cancer (no surprise, given my personal and family history) and a low risk of diabetes. Most of this I evaluated by doing a great deal of reading about the significance of these various SNPs. 23andme could have told me the same things, and saved me a lot of effort.

Morals? First, in the information age, the FDA is standing squarely in the path of progress, yelling 'STOP'. How can it be justified that the government can prevent a person from contracting with a company to find out information about their own genome? Second, it's pointless, because (as we used to say back at the dawn of the 'net) information interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. A cumbersome bureaucracy like the FDA is simply not nimble enough to prevent small enterprising companies from selling interpretation of genomic information (or for that matter, from selling nootropics). All they can do is be an expensive nuisance.

Burgeoning access to information is likely to be the doom of the Mommy State, but in the interim, more and more people are going to be finding out government is usually not your friend. It's the friend of the companies who want to sell you drugs at 100 times their cost in other countries, and doctors who want to maintain their monopoly on health care.

Back from the dead.

I'm going to try to blog more frequently in 2016, and focus on the nexus between science and politics. But we shall see!

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Deborah Nucatola and the moral sense.

Humans have an innate moral sense, that transcends religion, or culture, or education. We (most of us) are born with it. This is not up for debate; it's the conclusion of thousands of scientifc studies. Deny it, and you're equivalent to a creationist or denier of global warming.

Two very important parts of the moral sense are protectiveness towards babies and children, and a sense of disgust and fear of contamination. (There is an actual scientific debate about whether the latter two are separate.) Our protectiveness towards children is very much an evolutionary product of our being social animals. It's triggered by big eyes, big heads, small bodies, etc.. For example, in contrast to us, male lions slaughter the offspring of other male lions. As any biologist will tell you, there's little difference between a 22-week fetus and a newborn anyway; a breathing reflex, perhaps, and a change in blood flow that happens on birth. But, more innately, when we look at a 22-week gestational age human being in a preemie nursery, our brains see it as a baby, and our protective instinct is triggered. Light-hearted chatter about crushing the bodies of late term fetuses disturbs us, and it should. It's completely natural we feel that way. Blather all you want about it not being a baby; your brain knows better.

Now compound this protectiveness with disgust and fear of contamination, which exists, among other things, to protect us from eating bad food. There's a reason why we say 'not while I'm eating lunch' in response to disgusting stories. Watching conversation about dismembering babies, while the speaker is eating lunch, sets off two alarms. If it doesn't disturb you, you're probably a sociopath. And we don't like sociopaths, because we rtightly fear and shun people who don't have instincts that allow them to live peaceably with others.

So people who shake their heads at the 'ick' factor here are simply blind and ignorant; they are denying who we are.

Interestingly, research -- a lot of it done here are UNL -- shows conservatives tend to react more intensely to disgust (and conversely, disgust tends to make people more conservative). And liberals tend to be more protective, which is why they hate fetal pictures. This tape manages to trigger all of us.

Libertarians and liberals tend to argue we can transcend our innate moral sense, where it doesn't squae with our rationally based ethics. Peter Singer, for example, argues that if newborns and late term fetuses are essentially the same (and they are) we should be able to kill newborns just as we perform late-term abortions. Libertarians sometimes argue our incest taboo (another part of the moral sense, linked to disgust) makes no sense applied to sex between consenting adults who can't conceive deformed children, such as same-sex and infertile siblings. They're pissing into the wind.

Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the moral sense is incredibly important. We humans are simply not smart enough to do complex ethical calculus on the fly. We need a moral instinct, just as we need an instict that lets us figure out the flight of a baseball, and can't just integrate Newton's equations of motion, as a computer would.

We trifle with this stuff at our peril. There's no evidence our moral sense is a cafeteria from which we can pick and choose.

Saturday, July 4, 2015

The great social inversion

Reading Jacob Sullum's column about the PA governor's veto of a law that would free up private liquor sales in that state, I reflected on the fact that 40 years ago, liquor sales were still quite restricted in Nebraska. It's all changed. Nowadays, you can buy anything you want in a supermarket, any day of the week. The range of beers is fantastic. Although it's probably formally illegal, I've had cases of wine shipped in from Washington State and from France, without hassle. Since last Friday, you can get married to someone of the same sex here, with the usual restrictions (no underage, no close relatives, and neither of you should already be married). We repealed our sodomy laws way back in 1977.

That's not saying we're an oasis of libertarianism. Unlike most of the states bordering us, you still have to wear a helmet when operating a motorcycle. You can smoke tobacco pretty much nowhere in public. Unlike neighbor Colorado, you can't smoke dope (although cannabis grows wild all over the state). The police seem to be mostly interested in marijuana prohibition so we can intercept pot and money on I-80, but I still wouldn't light up in front of one.

I have no doubt the liquor restrictions in Pennsylvania (and New Hampshire, and in a dozen or so other states) are largely corrupt arrangements between the state and various private interests. Still, moralistic arguments have been offered in their defense. If you're a college student in California and New York, the state now places incredible restrictions on your sexual behavior. If you're at an institution of higher education in those states, your speech is heavily policed for political correctness. Heck, if you're in any sort of public position, even private monetary contributions towards unorthodix causes will lose you your job. You can't buy sugary soda. Even getting a job at a university requires a background check to make sure you're not a pervert.

Meanwhile, drive any interstate through the south, and you're bombarded with billboard ads for X-rated videos and sex shops. Most places don't prosecute prostitution except when it's out on the streeet and creating a public nuisance. Lincoln's own decidedly liberal police chief seems to have given up on Craigslist hooker stings.

My point is this; the places that were once socially conservative are now socially liberal, and the places that were once liberal are now becoming puritan. You don't need a notarized affidavit to have sex with a classmate in most of the red-states; in New York and California, it's safest to be accompanied on a date by a constitutional lawyer.

Anthony Burgess (Clockwork Orange) wrote a book about this once, called The Wanting Seed. It was written, presciently, in the early 60s, and predicted how the swing towards libertinism would bring about, much later, a reaction. So as liberals once preached free love, now, they're ring-fencing love with a barricade of rules. As they preached access to drugs; now they want to ban everything you might ingest that could conceivably do you harm; as they once championed the "Filthy Speech" movement; now, where they reign, speech requires walking on eggshells, lest you offend one of a myriad of hypersensitive identity groups.

Just as in the past, religious nonconformism led to puritanism, and the fight for women's rights led to prohibition; now the 60's revolution has led to the nanny state. Liberal thought is a giant oscillation between libertinism and prudishness. Meanwhile, conservatism follows along sheepishly, out of phase by a quarter cycle. As puritanism becomes orthodoxy, conservatives will adopt it, and then become angry as liberals suddenly decide libertinism is once again for them.

Right now, the liberal puritan wave is still building, and conservatives are about as libertarian as they'll ever be. All this will change.

Monday, June 22, 2015

We have met the enemy, and it is us: how scientists caused the great amphibian extinction.

Following a remark by Matt Ridley in today's Times, and a little searching, I came across a very disturbing paper about the massive world-wide amphibian extinction currently under way. While some scientists tried first to blame this on the ozone hole (pretty stupid, considering it was also happening in tropical regions which had no ozone hole), and then on climate change, (The Guardian, natch, is still doing this, despite the lack of any significant evidence) there is far more persuasive evidence that it was in fact caused by scientific and medical researchers themselves.

The intermediaries in this tale are a fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, and the African Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis. B. dendrobatidis infects and kills frogs, newts, salamanders, etc.. It has spread from Africa, around the world, in the last 75 years. What spread it was the worldwide trade in a couple of frog species: the African bullfrog, and Xenopus. The bullfrog is a pest spread by people who for some unaccountable reason consider frogs not only edible but a gourmet item, but evidence seems to point to Xenopus as principal culprit.

Who spread Xenopus around the world? Why, it was us (scientists, I mean). Scientists have long used amphibians to study developmental biology -- frog eggs develop into tadpoles in the open, and so can be easily studied -- and since World War II, Xenopus has been the organism of choice. It's featured in every modern textbook of developmental biology. It was also used in the 1950s in medical research and pregnancy testing. Large number of frogs were raised and shipped around the Earth, and the surplus were often sold as pets or released into the wild, where there are now populations spread all over the world. But Xenopus carries B. dendrobatidis, and the die-offs closely follow geographically the adoption of Xenopus as a research animal.

So while all the while we scientists were sanctimoniously lecturing our fellow citizens about how our nasty CO2 was killing amphibians, in fact, we ourselves were responsible. (Well some of us, I personally plead innocence to the sanctimony charge)