Archive for Science & Skepticism

Semantic Reclamation: Emergent Design Vs Intelligent Design

February 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm · Filed under Art Freak Culture + Science & Skepticism

Professor Ken Miller, who is famous for being the lead expert witness against Intelligent Design at the Dover Trial, has recently proposed that scientists reclaim the word “Design” from the ID movement (ie., the Creationists).

You can listen yourself to his argument for semantic reclamation here in a short discussion he had with James Randerson. I’ve also transcribed a couple of the most relevant quotes here:

ID proponents argue that we can see the hint of design in nature and they use that as evidence against evolution. And that puts scientists in a position of arguing that there is no design in nature — that nature is somehow capricious, arbitrary, random, pointless. Well there is design in nature and we should take that word away from the ID movement and define it in a scientific sense….

Yes design is real but that design emerges from the evolutionary process and the laws of physics and chemistry.

Personally, I couldn’t agree more. I really like the sound of Emergent Design. Others in comments on PZ Myer’s post have suggested Natural Design or Evolutionary Design or the longer Evolutionary Emergent Design which may work too. However, I prefer the term Emergent Design because I think it sounds better and it can contain more meaning: Emergent Design can also cover such emergent patterns such as evolutionary programming, fractals, Mandelbrot, etc.

PZ Myers, of the ScienceBlog Pharyngula, doesn’t agree with Ken Miller on this:

Look at all the flailings about over the word “theory”; lay people will hear that word being used by scientists and conclude that the creationists must have been right all along long before they get around to remapping their mental connections to design.

Another problem is of even greater concern. The word “design” carries other implications: purpose, planning, calculation. These are not present in evolution!

PZ Myer’s first argument is that it will just give creationists another means to twist our words. And his second argument is that this new use of design differs from current usage. Neither of these arguments are really valid when discussing the pros and cons of semantic reclamation.

Every time a word is reclaimed it is always the dirty word that everyone shies away from. The words are purposefully being twisted from their traditional meanings. Of course, some terms are not so much reclaimed as empowered such as Black and Gay; however, there are several examples of successful semantic reclamations:

• Punk, something or someone worthless or unimportant; a young hoodlum, becomes the proud Punk rock; and now gets transformed further to a suffix that means a style or movement characterized by the adoption of aggressively unconventional and often bizarre or shocking in both fashion and attitude.
• Queer, disparaging term for homosexuals in the sense of effeminate or unmanly, becomes the proud Queer embracing all who deviate from sexual/gender stereotypes; to now transform and mainstream even further with “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
• Dyke, used disparagingly by many, but like Punk and Queer it is now used proudly by the many of the same people it meant to insult.

Of course, one could point out that the hip hop cultural use of nigger, bitch, and ho haven’t really been all that successfully reclaimed. However, those terms are still also used negatively within the hip hop culture, which makes it hard for these terms to ever take on a new positive meaning.

What does this all have to do with Intelligent Design you might say? Well in this instance, Design isn’t used exactly as an insult, but it is being used as a means of attack. As a result, it has become the dirty word that scientists must shy away from. By being afraid to use the word Design, we are reinforcing the meaning that ID proponents want it to mean. We are empowering it for them not us.

Ken Miller is right. Anyone who looks at nature can plainly see pattern and design. By allowing the ID camp a monopoly on the word Design we are allowing all perceived design to be a win for the creationists. By instead reclaiming Design as Emergent Design we are reclaiming it and empowering it for ourselves.

Comments (6)  |  Trackback url  | 

Acupuncture boosts chances of your study getting international publicity

February 8, 2008 at 11:25 am · Filed under Science & Skepticism

BBC News reports Acupuncture ‘boosts IVF chances’ others such as the Chicago Tribune are a bit more sober, yet still misleading, using the headline Acupuncture might help with fertility.

To be true to the meta-analysis study, the headline should really read:

Acupuncture might help one out of ten women get pregnant via IVF treatment at Chinese clinics that have relatively low rates of success; patients in European clinics with high rates of success will get no benefit.

Let me break this down into easy to read bullet points:

• This is not a new study just a meta-analysis of seven previously published studies
• These studies used different methodologies and we don’t know what the selection criteria was or what bias there might have been
• The studies at European clinics showed no effect
• The only studies that showed any effect were Chinese IVF clinic studies
  • Chinese clinic studies were somewhat over-represented in the meta-analysis
  • Chinese clinics had lower rates of IVF success overall
  • Research in China is plagued by plagiarism and fraud
• Since the only positive research came from Chinese research this calls the entire meta-analysis into doubt
• Unless — acupuncture only works in China — Ha!

For a more in depth breakdown on this recent study, read Peter Sanderson’s blog post Misleading acupuncture / IVF headlines.

In another study back in september, acupuncture was shown to have no effect beyond the placebo effect. Again the media distorted this acupuncture study. Others have already done an excellent job dissecting the acupuncture back pain studies here and here.

The only real conclusion to make from all of this is that acupuncture has one solidly empirical benefit: with enough positive manipulation any researcher can get international headlines.

Comments (4)  |  Trackback url  | 

What are they high!?!

January 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm · Filed under Minds, Brains, & inbetween + Science & Skepticism

A lot of science geeks enjoy lambasting the press for their excessive use of hype in reporting science and medical news. The excellent Bad Science blog specializes in this sort of media skewering, as do several ScienceBlogs writers and other science bloggers.

One problem with all this finger pointing is the fact that scientists and doctors often infuse quite a bit of hyperbole themselves whenever they discuss their research. The discussion section of any paper is often where the forest of wild tangents lives. This is especially true with basic science research where they use this section to say “See! See! Our research is relevant too! It’s worth the funding since it’ll lead to new cures for the Whathaveyou Syndrome.”

Case in point, I was recently gleaning a few recent cocaine research study news releases and I noticed a distinct lack of reality with the conjecture. All these come from Science Daily which prints articles in their original form from universities and research organizations. This all hyperboles are coming straight from the horses mouth.

“We have a brain hard-wired to appreciate rewards, and cocaine and other drugs of abuse latch onto this system. We are looking at the potential for new medications that reduce the brain’s sensitivity to these conditioned drug cues and would give patients a fighting chance to manage their urges.” (Subconscious Signals Can Trigger Drug Craving) ¹

“Based on this study, it appears that promising new therapies for addiction may be based on treatments that mute the desire to escalate cocaine intake by blocking the elevation of brain reward thresholds produced by chronic cocaine use.” (Research Helps Explain Why Perception Of Pleasure Decreases With Chronic Cocaine Use) ²

Anyone with an ounce (28.3495231 grams) of scientific skepticism can see right through any of this, tear into the meat of the study, toss out the wild tangents, and hunt for connections to broader theories and future research ideas. This however is not the journalist’s job. There job is to make the science seem more like SCIENCE!

SCIENCE! journalism — as opposed to science journalism — is useful for keeping science interesting and relevant to the public at large, and hopefully inspiring the next generation of scientists. Of course, it also has it’s problems in that distorts the science, but as I mentioned, scientists are pretty good at doing that themselves.

Footnotes

1. I.E., put the addict on an antipsychotic (aka dopamine antagonist). Antipsychotics have fun side effects like the desire to sleep a lot, reduced libido, weight gain, and a general anhedonia (they don’t get too exited about anything). Sure it may deaden the cravings (and possibly protect D2 receptors), but will addicts really willingly take a drug that makes them feel like they are in continual withdrawal?
2. I.E., somehow get the addict to take some sort of anti-psychotic when they are in the middle of their drug binge — even better if it’s their first drug binge. Sorry to burst your bubble but this ain’t gonna happen.
3. The cocaine vaccine while not a panacea shows some promise — if ethically awkward. I’ve been meaning to write something on it but I want to put a bit more research into that post.

Comments (1)  |  Trackback url  | 

Cutting Through the Stem Cell Hype

November 21, 2007 at 12:31 pm · Filed under Politics + Science & Skepticism

Recent stem cell advancements have been been exploding across the headlines. If you somehow missed these headlines, the bulk of it is “researchers have figured out how to reprogram adult cell into a state that is nearly indistinguishable from embryonic, pluripotent stem cells.”

Unlike some science stories in the news this isn’t pure hype; it is truly important and has been tested by multiple labs. However, like normal, the media reports are mostly lacking in details and full of loud pronouncements about how this tolls the end of the culture wars and how using embryonic stem cells is now “old-fashioned.”

Like always the truth is more complex. And of course the fabulous ScienceBlogs lays it all out where the media falls flat. PZ Myers, of Pharyngula offers an excellent explanation of the research and it’s implications entitled Stem Cell Breakthrough. Also, the Denialism Blog has a great post about it entitled, Reprogramming adult cells into pluripotent stem cells - what do these new results mean. The blog Framing Science wrote two posts detailing how this is going to effect the future of the stem cell debate: The Next Stage in the Stem Cell Debate Begins! and THE DISCOVERY: What It Means for Framing & News Coverage.

I highly recommend you read these excellent articles, but for those of you who are too busy I offer a few important bullet points:

• “Americans did not make this discovery; Japanese researchers did. It required understanding of gene expression in embryonic stem cells, an understanding that was hampered in our country. ” (PZ Myers)
• This discovery is truly important and has been tested by multiple labs.
• “What the investigators have accomplished is to discover the reset button for the cell, but the way they currently press it is by hitting it hard with a ball peen hammer.” (PZ Myers)
• This new method is still somewhat crude and this means that the cells cannot be used for theraputic purposes as these cells have a higher chance of becoming cancerous than embryonic stem cells.
• This does not spell the end of embryonic stem cells as in order to find a more eloquent way of switching the “reset button” more research using embryonic stem cells will be needed.

Sadly, I think science has already lost the (religiously polarized, scientifically illiterate) American public on this issue. The media has already spin this as a win for the Christian Right and is ignoring that fact that it is really a win for embryonic stem cell researchers — and more importantly that more embryonic stem cell research is needed.

Comments (1)  |  Trackback url  |