Plead the First

Einstein’s famous equation is relatively old:

In 1905, it was final proof of the genius and imagination of a young German-born scientist who had yet to land a university post. … Einstein showed in a handful of lines that as you accelerate an object, it not only gets faster, it also gets heavier. That in turn makes further pushing less fruitful so that eventually nothing can be accelerated beyond the speed of light. The equation rounded out the theory of relativity he had started earlier in the year.

It seems that in at least one case our government’s restrictions on stem cell research are causing scientists to pursue their research in other countries:

Two government biologists heavily recruited by Stanford University have decided to work in Singapore instead, saying they will face fewer restrictions on stem cell research overseas.

…Copeland and Jenkins are famous for discovering a way to accelerate the identification of cancer-causing genes in mice. Scientists hope to advance this discovery by using embryonic stem-cell cultures to build models of leukemia, lymphoma and other cancers. If researchers can learn which genes are mutated in cancer, they could possibly develop drugs to block mutations.

At Singapore’s Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, any of the couple’s discoveries would first be patented and used in Singapore.

I can’t tell from this if their concerns are due to a lack of available government funding for research that is otherwise legal, or if the issue is that there are more legal (not necessarily ethical) options over in Singapore. Either way, this shows that thought should certainly be given to where anti-science policies and attitudes may lead us. There are consequences, such as the possibility that cures and treatments may be getting delayed, and – in this case – the U.S. losing the benefits of having researchers make their discoveries here rather than elsewhere.

As I’ve mentioned before, there isn’t any real scientific controversy about Intelligent Design. The conflict is totally legal and political, cooked up by ID advocates because there’s little to no scientific merit to ID arguments.

In October, there was a forum titled “Science Wars,” sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, and something Ken Miller said there sums this up perfectly:

[A]dvocates of intelligent design like to paint themselves as the lone heroes fighting against scientific dogma. They got a really revolutionary idea, and they’re gonna convince everybody in science, give ’em a coupla decades. And you know, maybe they will. Maybe they will. And they cite the Big Bang as an example of an idea that was once regarded with suspicion, or as heresy, and gradually won over. But the interesting thing, is not the question as you whether or not revolutionary ideas occasionally win out in science. The interesting idea, the interesting question, is *how* do revolutionary ideas win out. And the Big Bang won out because of scientific research, because Arto & Penzious found the background radiation to the Big Bang. They completed the theory. They stitched it together. It was a predictive theory, that says you ought to go out and find this in nature.

Now the curious thing, is the advocates of that theory did not try to get themselves injected into curricula. They didn’t produce pamphlets on how you could get the Big Bang taught in your school district and avoid the constitutional questions. They did the research, they won the scientific battle. That’s how science actually works. And for all the high-minded statements about design, about the philosophy of Aristotle, about fairness, and about the implicit theological assumptions of evolution, the straightforward and simple matter, as Dr. Krauss said, is that science works, and it is particularly good at predicting stuff that isn’t true. If intelligent design has the facts of nature on its side, it’ll win out. And I don’t see any particular reason to fight this legal route, unless, unless, the battle you are fighting is primarily political, cultural, social, and religious, and not scientific. And in this case, to use a nice lawyer term these guys will understand, res ipse loquitor, the facts speak for themselves.

Via Pharyngula.

I seem to be experiencing some server problems. The site’s been inaccessible a few times this morning. I apologize for any inconvenience or annoyance.

Update: Here’s some more in-depth info, in case anyone isn’t familiar with what happened with the Comprehensive Plan: From News and Record, A Little Urbanity, and Chosen Fast.

Aetiology has a real world example of how evolutionary theory is being used in medical research into bacterial resistance to antibiotics:

Peptide antibiotics have not yet been used clinically to treat human infections, but imagine if they had gone into widespread use without a thought given to the evolution of resistance to these peptides. Imagine if they had gone into widespread use prior to an investigation of the relatedness of various peptides to those produced by humans. Imagine if, as a result of not considering these implications, we had lost an ancient protection against bacteria—-which *evolved* over millions of years of host-pathogen interaction–due to a mere advancement in biotechnology.

It’s a great article, and it demonstrates one reason why it’s so important for scientists to understand evolutionary concepts. Disease and infection affect all of us at some point. Our knowledge – or lack of knowledge – about evolution can have a profound influence on the effectiveness of any treatments we create.

The simple fact of Pat Robertson rebuking the citizens of Dover, PA for ousting Intelligent Design-supporting school board members is ridiculous enough, but it turns out that Robertson is even more clueless than I originally thought. In his rebuke, Robertson said, “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city.” However, according to Bernadette Reinking, one of the newly-elected school board members, Intelligent Design isn’t going to be kicked out of Dover’s schools, let alone the city, but only eliminated from their science classrooms (from an interview on NPR this morning):

Our group wants to put Intelligent Design in an elective course … We don’t believe that you don’t have to talk about it, we just believe it needs to be in a different part of the curriculum … Every one of [the newly elected school board members] is a Christian, and every one of us believes in God, we don’t have a problem with that. There’s a church on every corner in Dover.”

So even leaving aside the idea of God running some kind of vindictive protection racket, Robertson’s rebuke is way off the mark considering that the new school board is actually in favor of putting ID in the classroom – just not the science classroom.

David Boyd blogs about Richard Miniter’s book, Disinformation, which purports to explore media myths and misinformation about Iraq’s (nonexistent) WMDs. There’s a good discussion going on in the comments there, so check it out.

An article on cnn.com today takes a look at senior citizens who blog. It’s nice to think that this hobby might provide a little comfort for me when I’m old and creaky.

As a sidenote, check out the full text of the cnn link (emphasis added):

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/11/10/geezers.who.blog.ap/index.html

Mrs. Stew and I are going out to dinner tonight, and had hoped to find something nice in downtown Greensboro. Preferably someplace charming. Slightly fancy is fine, but cozy is good too. I’ve decided to harness the Power of the Blog to get some recommendations. Comment now – our culinary fate is in your hands!