Slashdot Mirror
Abuses of Science Political Cartoon Contest
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."
Well, if I had any artistic talent...
A cartoon of Darwin with a turban except the turban is actually a bomb with a lit fuse.
If we're talking political abuse-of-science, can I link to this essay by Michael Crichton about "environmentalism as religion" just to remind everyone that things like this cut both ways?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Abuses of science.... poorly worded?
Wow, did anyone else read that headline and think that they were inviting people to make their political attacks on science in a cartoon?
I expected a cartoon attacking stem cell research, of maybe a mushroom cloud over hiroshima with the caption "scientific progress".
Of course, it's completely the other way, as I would hope... but yeah, title misleading!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
dupe this story when the results & cartoons are ready, please :)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
We need a cartoon that depicts an email recipient reading about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide with a send this to everybody you know footer.
When the Republicans (not necessarily the Right) try their hardest to subvert science, then I would expect scientists to lampoon them.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Please no flame wars about the old churches stance on celestial mechanics - we've all seen it before, no need to bring it up and get side tracked. We are talking about todays political climate.
And please let's not limit this discussion to evolution and creationists - there's been a great deal of interference on the topic of global warming. The old Republican party stance that it's not occurring has been disproven by the vast majority of atmospheric/climatologists scientists, and have shown it to be a fact. I hate that because Al Gore (A Democrat) is pro-environment, that many Republicans feel that they have to take an opposing viewpoint - what gives!? Yes, I'm sure the Dems do the same with other issues, but we are talking about science here, so let's keep our egos and passions aside and behave like rational thinkers.
..........FULL STOP.
Given the fact that you posted it I have to presume that you are unaware of the fact that your post is a reasonably good example of why this contest is a good idea and the sponsoring organization is necessary.
Yes, you are right. (That was sarcasm)
If you take the time to read the sponsoring organization they are clearly promoting a liberal socialist agenda. One side, anti Bush, Anti republican, etc etc. The kind of organization they are would not let out cartoons critiquing their side.
But ultimately this has no place on slashdots main page. Let people only listen to one side, I do not care. I take the time to read both sides, and I understand both sides are morons. Thank you for proving though that you have no clue about one sided propaganda.
People of religion have been studying science for decades.
There is no disparity.
Those who seek conflict only search to reaffirm their own personal beliefs about the world.
The "debate" deserves parody.
When I read the New Testament, one thing that really stands out to me is the emphasis Jesus placed on always asking questions. He never told his followers to obey him obediently. He wanted them to question his actions and words. He wanted them to think for themselves, and analyze the world around them, for themselves. That's the very essence of science: understanding nature via observation and experimentation.
A common theme throughout the Gospels is somebody asking Jesus a question, and Jesus telling them to look. Sometimes they would have to look inside themselves, but other times they were told to look at the world around them. They could find the answers there. All they had to do was look.
Frankly, we don't need comics to prove wrong those Republicans, neoconservatives, evangelists, etc., who have perverted the teachings of Christ. As Christ taught us to do, all we need to do is look! We can look for ourselves at his very teachings just to see how perverted some people's interpretations of them are. And we can use his wisdom in our pursuit of science. As scientists, we always need to be continuously observing, experimenting, and otherwise understanding the world around us. That's exactly what Jesus encouraged his followers to do.
Heck, if we're talking abuse of science, I can't think of any better subject to discuss than the author of Andromeda Strain, Prey, and State of Fear. The man's been mangling science for years and then making his books look better by tossing a gratuitous biblography of all the papers he supposedly read to justify his plots. (Alien crystal viruses, grey goo, and local cooling disproving global warming, oh my!)
Michael Crichton doesn't know what he's talking about. State of Fear is filled with junk science. Read a more thorough debunking here.
The essay you link is nothing but an attack on the argument by attacking the source of the argument as being from zealots. He accuses the environmental movement of being responsible for massive deaths, and claims that they're distorting facts without backing any of it up with "facts" of his own -- except for "facts" like the harmlessness of second-hand smoke. Crichton's a loon and an asshole for making that last argument in particular, but the bulk of the essay argument is that environmentalists are wrong in their assertions (without any justification of why) and thus religious nuts for asserting something that his holiness Crichton declares to be wrong. (Oh, he could cite mainstream articles, but you wouldn't believe him anyway, so why back up his bald-faced lies?)
He attacks environmentalists as being the same as people who romanticize primativism, use errors on predictions of a socially affected phenomena like population growth show that scientists who care about the environment can't be trusted. He claims that DDT is harmless because it's not a carcinogenic (when it's the liver, immune, and nervous toxicity that actually caused it to be banned). He states that we can't totally roll back carbon emissions without fusion technology, so it's a waste of time to bother reducing them in the meantime. He falls back on the old saw of the environment being a complex system that's hard to understand as justification for not erring on the side of safety.
His speech is nothing but a litany of half-truths, distortions, unbacked assertions, and ad hominem attacks. So, yes, let's start our discussion of abuse of science with a discussion of Crichton. It's only appropriate.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Nazis were SOCIALISTS
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.
Michael Crichton once again shows how focusing on local differences and exceptions and extrapolating them as a trend is an intellectual folly. If you want to seriously argue that the EPA budget-cutting, pro-mercury in the air, pro-arsenic in the water, pro-relaxation of pesticide rules Republicans that adamantly refuse to entertain the idea of ratifying Kyoto treaty are no different from the Democrats, then you're deliberately cherry-picking your facts to bolster your dellusional worldview -- you know, like Michael Crichton does.
Nixon was moderate to liberal on a number of domestic issues from wage controls to gun control to affirmative action to establishing the EPA, OSHA, and NOAA. He supported a lot of market regulation in a time period that pundits were saying that conservatism was dead. He was very different from many conservatives today, and many of his policies were great successes that were overshadowed by his personal corruption.
As for Johnson, he did open up a pristine area to drilling. However, he also said the following when signing the Clean Water Act:
Johnson's record on the environment was overall quite good. His wife Lady Bird Johnson was a tireless environmental advocate. It was Johnson's administration that first started looking into the environment as a matter of air and water pollution instead of just protected land conservation. Nixon just kept the ball rolling that Johnson kicked off. From the Wikipedia, here is a list of environmental regulations kicked off in the Johnson era:
To suggest that Johnson (and thus Democrats) are and were not environmentalists based on one single action against shows Crichton's lack of intellectual integrity.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
From what I've seen, any area on the political playing field will try to attack science if it hurts their sacred cows.
Bring up the cost/benefits of Kyoto, and most of the objections won't be from Republicans.
Wow, you got me. I've fallen into the deep canyon of environmental responsibility. Please save me from my recycling bin and my daily walk to work through the park (or the bus on rainy days). Please open my eyes to the dangers of NOT polluting the air I breathe. Oh, what a fool I've been!
Somone steal this and submit it:
Devil holding up a sign, "My gandpa ain't no monkey!" in a group of evolution protestors. One guys turns and says, "YOU'RE here too?" And the devil replys, "What? And let even MORE people see how brilliant he can be?"
Are you serious? There is no question that the U.S. Ban on DDT has resulted in supply shortages such that millions of Africans and South Americans are dying each year from malaria. This site and this reference at the the CDC are good places to start.
Even the New York Times 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.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
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)
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 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, or his patently absurd claim that AIDS may be transmitted via tears and sweat.
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.
Vonnegut: "What is the purpose of life? To be the eyes, ears, and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool."
I think the point that he so ineloquently stated is that Al Gore and his followers are just as guilty of eco-extremism as Bush and his followers are as guilty of corporate-extremism. Just because Al Gore is blinded by his hatred for modern man and most Slashdotters are of his particular political party does not mean that he's absolutely correct. He's an extremist; but, at least I refuse to lump all environmentalists with his extremism.
On the opposite side, however, those of us who do NOT agree with Al Gore are automatically tagged as those who want to destroy the atmosphere in the name of the all-mighty dollar. It's completely hypocritical to despise when the right vilifies the extremist left but accept when the left vilifies the extremist right; yet that's what's most likely going to happen not only throughout this thread but also in this political cartoon contest.
Even though I'm a staunch, evil Republican, I'm also a staunch conservationist. I do not accept the extremist, global warming theories that Al Gore and the majority of Slashdotters take as gospel. Even so, I make sure to recycle everything from plastic to office paper, newspapers, and cardboard; I make sure to keep my car properly tuned and maintained to maximize my fuel efficiency; I complain to corporations who make products that can be recycled but aren't, such as the Brita water filters; but I guarantee that I will be lumped in with the anti-environmentalist crowd because of my political affiliation and because I think that Al Gore is a freakin' nutcase with too much time on his hands and too much exporsure to abuse.
That's the problem with Slashdot and topics that intermingle politics with science. Anyone with any inclination to doubt the extremist beliefs of people like Al Gore and TripMaster Monkey is automatically tagged as anti-environment, which is complete BS, just like anyone who says that we need to lower pollution and sign Kyoto (which I am fervently against because of the way it singles out the U.S.) is suddenly tagged as a tree hugger.
And to prove that even further, I guarantee that I'll be modded as troll or flamebait, even though there are thousands if not tens of thousands of posts in Slashdot's archive to prove this. After all, anyone who dares to challenge the Slashdot groupthink is vilified because that's an acceptable practice, although the opposite is not. So be it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to take my over-flowing, recycling bin out for collection tomorrow and take several bags of shredded office paper down to my township's collection facility. Yessir, just another evil, Republican doing his part to further ruin the environment.
*sigh*
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
East Germany was formally named German Democratic Republic. I'm guessing that makes them democratic in your book.
Je ne parle pas francais.
And once sea level rises, and weather systems move as a result of increased heat, are those still going to be your best farmlands ? Or are they going to dry up and become deserts ?
And what will you do if, say, the best farmlands of China turn out to be too low and are buried underwater ? Do you think that the chinese are going to simply starve silently, or are they going to try to take yours ?
I see my original post was modded Overrated. I guess the pro-industry astroturfers are out again tonight. Makes me wonder if Slashdot was given any "donations" to make the two mods unmetamoderable...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Here here to that! Micahel Crichton's works are disturbingly close to science, without actually being accurate (that is the danger - that they are confused with science by young/uneducated minds).
The essay you link is nothing but an attack on the argument by attacking the source of the argument as being from zealots. He accuses the environmental movement of being responsible for massive deaths.
Ad hominem attacks are highly effective. Why is this? Is it a quirk of human nature "I hate this guy so I don't listen to anything he says," or is it actually rational? Think about this for a moment:
If one takes a Bayesian view of probability (probability represents one's degree of belief in a proposition, not a frequency of occurrance), then if one is a rational Bayesian agent, one must incorporate all "relevant" information when ascertaining the belief of a hypothesis, through the chaining of probabilities. Starting with a prior on a statement (unfortunately what prior to choose is often unclear, and is perhaps even arbitrary), one modifies the belief by multiplying by conditional probabilities as gathered by evidence.
One can easily make the claim (the "proof" for this shall be left as an exercise to the reader) that given the sum of experiences one has collected over their lifetime, (direct experience or transitive experience through discussion, books, and other media) one can infer that there is indeed a conditional probability connecting the probability that entity A is a "zealot" and that information from entity A is incorrect.
Bayesian reasoning/inference differs significantly from "pure" boolean reasoning in that it captures this information in a way tha tis actually useful in real life. For instance, the statement "if someone is pointing a gun at you, they will kill you" is obviously false under boolean logic systems, however in real life it is prudent to infer that it is likely enough that htey will kill you that you should take it into account in your planning process. Similarly with the "ad hominem" attacks. The following statements are all valid in a Bayesian framework (when one takes into account the independence of these propositions from other information known about entity A):
All of these statements are fairly vague (I'm sure one can find a far more rigorous discussion of this somewhere online), however I trust you can see that independent of all other information on Entity A these statements are correct.
That leads me to conclude (in an albeit simplified fashion) that because information on a subject/individual/particular point is highly limited (indeed, with things like global warming, etc, even having a PhD in the field is only a reasonable start, not a comprehensive, authoritative educaiton), one must consider all information about an argument (and weight it according to statistical correlation) when one makes an inference (once again assuming one is a Bayesian, which is a strong assumption, but definitely closer to human reasoning under uncertainty than pure boolean logic, or
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.
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.